bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

A shake-up of the procedures involving High Court bailiffs could be on the way if a landmark case succeeds in exposing them to claims for damages.

 Businessman James Fu Lok-man has launched what is believed to be the first action against the Chief Bailiff for at least 20 years.

 He claims he was forced to close down his factory when a consignment of fashionable leather jackets was wrongly seized and then auctioned off at a fraction of the normal price.

 His barrister, Simon Chiu, said bailiffs had for many years presumed they were automatically protected from legal action by the courts.

 'It may be that, as a result of this case, that practice is to be reviewed,' he told the judge.

 Mr Chiu said bailiffs had not thought it necessary to apply to the court for orders to protect them from legal action.

 He argued they should be liable for seizing the wrong goods if an innocent party had suffered a substantial grievance as a result.

 Mr Fu's company, Lokie Leather Ware, supplied more than 200 jackets to Santini Fashions in Tsim Sha Tsui.

 But the shop was involved in a dispute with its landlords and the jackets were seized by court bailiffs in December 1995 along with other items of stock.

 Mr Fu, who was not involved in the shop's dispute, failed to persuade the bailiffs to return his jackets.

 He said he reluctantly agreed to the goods being sold at auction in February 1996 as he feared that they would either deteriorate because of the warmer weather or go out of fashion.

 Mr Fu put the retail value of the jackets at $560,000. However, they fetched only $112,000 at auction.

 The court heard the goods represented 90 per cent of his stock. He was forced to shut his factory and lay off elderly staff who had served him loyally for years, the court heard.

 Prompted by Mr Fu's legal action, the bailiffs sought an order to protect themselves from legal action.

 But the protection order was refused and the case proceeded to the Court of First Instance.

 The Judiciary currently employs 49 bailiffs whose duties include carrying out evictions, enforcing injunctions, arresting debtors and seizing property.

 The case continues today before Mr Justice Azizul Suffiad.



Shake-up of bailiff system hangs on ruling