LAM HOO KAI AND ANOTHER v. THE ROYAL HONG KONG JOCKEY CLUB

LAM HOO KAI AND ANOTHER v. THE ROYAL HONG KONG JOCKEY CLUB

Plaintiffs, as joint owners, established on balance of probabilities a bona fide and reasonable requirement to occupy the premises; defendant failed to adduce evidence and therefore did not discharge the statutory burden under s.53(2)(b) to show that granting possession would be manifestly unjust or inequitable; judgment for possession accordingly follows.

Citation
LAM HOO KAI AND ANOTHER v. THE ROYAL HONG KONG JOCKEY CLUB
Parties
Plaintiff (co Owner): Lam Hoo Kai; Plaintiff (co Owner): Lee Wah Hing; Defendant (tenant): The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 July 1981
Case Number
DCCJ4735/1980
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim Under Landlord & Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance S.53(2)(b) / District Court Judgment (final)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs for possession against The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club
Legal Topics
Possession, Reasonable Requirement to Occupy, Joint Ownership, Residence and Nationality as Bearing on Occupancy
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Civil Procedure Possession Reasonable Requirement to Occupy Joint Ownership Residence and Nationality as Bearing on Occupancy

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

Parties

Lam Hoo Kai

Plaintiff (co Owner)

Lee Wah Hing

Plaintiff (co Owner)

The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club

Defendant (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim Under Landlord & Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance S.53(2)(b) / District Court Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs as joint owners established a bona fide and reasonable requirement to occupy the premises under s.53(2)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the tenant discharged the burden to show that it would be manifestly not just and equitable to grant possession
  3. 3 Impact of plaintiffs' emigration/residence status on their entitlement to occupy

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs, as joint owners, established on balance of probabilities a bona fide and reasonable requirement to occupy the premises; defendant failed to adduce evidence and therefore did not discharge the statutory burden under s.53(2)(b) to show that granting possession would be manifestly unjust or inequitable; judgment for possession accordingly follows.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs for possession against The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club

Orders

  • Judgment for possession in plaintiffs' favour against defendant