LEE WAI WING v. LEE PAK HONG

LEE WAI WING v. LEE PAK HONG

The court held that the historical "right to let" conferred exclusive possession and use of particular floors akin to ownership; the 1972 transaction effected an equitable assignment of the First Floor to the Purchaser who, having taken possession and later benefited from letters of administration, holds two-thirds of the legal and equitable interests; contributions by the Purchaser were credited and the notice to quit was ineffective because the Purchaser's occupancy derived from ownership rights rather than tenancy.

Citation
LEE WAI WING v. LEE PAK HONG
Parties
Plaintiff (hcmp 2490/97): LEE PAK HONG; Defendant (hcmp 2490/97); Plaintiff (hca 6201/98): LEE WAI WING (also known as LEE BING KOW, trading as GLOBE SEWING MACHINE CO.)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 June 1999
Case Number
HCA6201/1998
Procedural Posture
Partition and Possession / Eviction / Judgment Delivered (2 June 1999)
Outcome
Partition ordered: Successor (Plaintiff in HCMP) one-third and Purchaser (Defendant in HCMP / Plaintiff in HCA) two-thirds; notice to quit ineffective; judgment awarded to Purchaser for contribution and declaration of exclusive possession of Ground Floor to Purchaser from 1958.
Legal Topics
Partition, Exclusive Possession, Equitable Assignment, Contribution to Outgoings, Eviction, Rights of Co Owners
Source Language
EN
Property Equity Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Partition Exclusive Possession Equitable Assignment Contribution to Outgoings +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE PAK HONG

Plaintiff (hcmp 2490/97)

LEE WAI WING (also known as LEE BING KOW, trading as GLOBE SEWING MACHINE CO.)

Defendant (hcmp 2490/97); Plaintiff (hca 6201/98)

Procedural Posture

Partition and Possession / Eviction / Judgment Delivered (2 June 1999)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the informal "right to let" conferred on original co-owners amounted to exclusive ownership of individual floors
  2. 2 Whether the 1972 transfer by the Successor's mother to the Purchaser validly transferred the First Floor interest despite lack of formal title at the time
  3. 3 Proper partition proportions between co-owners given the 1972 transaction and subsequent acts

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the historical "right to let" conferred exclusive possession and use of particular floors akin to ownership; the 1972 transaction effected an equitable assignment of the First Floor to the Purchaser who, having taken possession and later benefited from letters of administration, holds two-thirds of the legal and equitable interests; contributions by the Purchaser were credited and the notice to quit was ineffective because the Purchaser's occupancy derived from ownership rights rather than tenancy.

Court Disposition

Partition ordered: Successor (Plaintiff in HCMP) one-third and Purchaser (Defendant in HCMP / Plaintiff in HCA) two-thirds; notice to quit ineffective; judgment awarded to Purchaser for contribution and declaration of exclusive possession of Ground Floor to Purchaser from 1958.

Orders

  • The legal and equitable interests in the Property are partitioned between the parties in HCMP 2490 of 1997 as to one-third for the Plaintiff and two-thirds for the Defendant therein
  • The Property in HCMP 2490 of 1997 be sold within 6 months from the date of this judgment by public auction or private treaty in a manner to be agreed between the parties therein and the proceeds from sale be divided between the said parties in the same proportion to their partitioned interests, after deduction of...