Distress: were goods in the apparent possession of the sub-tenant or the intermediate landlord?

In Fort Crown Investments Ltd v Tam Virginia V ([2006] HKEC 63, CA) there was a lease and a sub-lease of property. The head landlord levied distress on goods owned by the sub-tenant. The Court of Appeal decided that since the goods were actually owned by the sub-tenant, and the head landlord had notice of the sub-tenant’s claim to them, they were not in the apparent possession of the intermediate landlord.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: