BRADSTONE LTD v. CARRY EXPRESS INVESTMENT LTD

BRADSTONE LTD v. CARRY EXPRESS INVESTMENT LTD

The notice was valid because the respondent's insertion of grounds under the printed sub‑paragraph (2) must be read together with the printed words indicating opposition; applying a liberal construction, the form satisfied s.119(5) despite the failure to delete the alternative paragraph and the imperfect drafting of the inserted ground; costs were refused because the respondent did not act frivolously and costs are constrained by the governing statutes.

Citation
BRADSTONE LTD v. CARRY EXPRESS INVESTMENT LTD
Parties
Applicant (landlord): Bradstone Limited; Respondent (tenant): Carry Express Investment Limited
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 May 1995
Case Number
LDNT764/1995
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant (residential Tenancy) / Inter Partes Interlocutory Application (preliminary Ruling on Validity of Form CR 101)
Outcome
Interlocutory application allowed; Form CR 101 held valid; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Notice of Termination, Form CR 101, S.119(5) Compliance, Costs Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Tribunal Procedure Notice of Termination Form CR 101 S.119(5) Compliance Costs Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradstone Limited

Applicant (landlord)

Carry Express Investment Limited

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant (residential Tenancy) / Inter Partes Interlocutory Application (preliminary Ruling on Validity of Form CR 101)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Form CR 101 complied with s.119(5) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap.7
  2. 2 Whether failure to delete alternative paragraph and ambiguous inserted grounds invalidated the notice
  3. 3 Whether the Lands Tribunal may award costs given statutory restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

The notice was valid because the respondent's insertion of grounds under the printed sub‑paragraph (2) must be read together with the printed words indicating opposition; applying a liberal construction, the form satisfied s.119(5) despite the failure to delete the alternative paragraph and the imperfect drafting of the inserted ground; costs were refused because the respondent did not act frivolously and costs are constrained by the governing statutes.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application allowed; Form CR 101 held valid; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Interlocutory application allowed
  • Form CR 101 declared valid under s.119(5) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap.7