WAI LUEN INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. GOLDEN PALACE BALLROOM

WAI LUEN INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. GOLDEN PALACE BALLROOM

Leave to defend was granted because, notwithstanding suspicion and inadequate particulars, the defendant raised a triable issue supported by substantial alleged expenditure (~$500,000) said to have been incurred in reliance on the asserted oral agreement; accordingly summary possession could not be entered without trial, subject to conditions requiring interim payment of the proposed rent and outgoings.

Citation
WAI LUEN INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. GOLDEN PALACE BALLROOM
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Wai Luen Investment Company Limited; Defendant/appellant: Golden Palace Ballroom
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 1992
Case Number
HCA978/1991
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Possession Proceedings / Appeal From Master’s Summary Judgment; Determination on Leave to Defend and Directions for Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; defendant granted leave to defend subject to conditions
Legal Topics
Possession, Mesne Profits, Summary Judgment, Oral Agreement, Leave to Defend, Trial Directions
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Civil Procedure Possession Mesne Profits Summary Judgment Oral Agreement Leave to Defend +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wai Luen Investment Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Golden Palace Ballroom

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Possession Proceedings / Appeal From Master’s Summary Judgment; Determination on Leave to Defend and Directions for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an alleged oral agreement to grant a new two-year tenancy existed
  2. 2 Whether acceptance of mesne profits created a new tenancy
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has a bona fide defence sufficient to resist summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to defend was granted because, notwithstanding suspicion and inadequate particulars, the defendant raised a triable issue supported by substantial alleged expenditure (~$500,000) said to have been incurred in reliance on the asserted oral agreement; accordingly summary possession could not be entered without trial, subject to conditions requiring interim payment of the proposed rent and outgoings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; defendant granted leave to defend subject to conditions

Orders

  • Defendant granted leave to defend the action
  • Defendant to pay to the plaintiffs on the first day of each month the monthly rental of $123,000 pending trial