MAXSON SERVICES LTD v. EVER CONCORD INVESTMENT LTD

MAXSON SERVICES LTD v. EVER CONCORD INVESTMENT LTD

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s.119NA because although notice under s.119(1) had been given, the statutory precondition that the Tribunal does not make an order for the grant of a new tenancy had not arisen—the Tribunal was never given the opportunity to refuse such an order—therefore s.119NA did not apply and the Tribunal must dismiss the application; costs withheld pursuant to s.119R as no party acted frivolously or vexatiously.

Citation
MAXSON SERVICES LTD v. EVER CONCORD INVESTMENT LTD
Parties
Tenant: Maxson Services Limited; Landlord: Ever Concord Investment Limited
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 June 2003
Case Number
LDMP5/2003
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Rent Determination Under Part IV / Application Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rent Determination, Mesne Profits, Termination of Tenancy, Costs, Repair and Deposit Deductions
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Civil Procedure Rent Determination Mesne Profits Termination of Tenancy Costs Repair and Deposit Deductions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxson Services Limited

Tenant

Ever Concord Investment Limited

Landlord

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Rent Determination Under Part IV / Application Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lands Tribunal has jurisdiction under s.119NA to determine rent after expiry when it has not made an order refusing a new tenancy
  2. 2 Whether rent for the post‑expiry period should be assessed on a two‑year tenancy basis under s.119NA(2)
  3. 3 Whether payments of $190,000 after expiry were interim pending determination

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s.119NA because although notice under s.119(1) had been given, the statutory precondition that the Tribunal does not make an order for the grant of a new tenancy had not arisen—the Tribunal was never given the opportunity to refuse such an order—therefore s.119NA did not apply and the Tribunal must dismiss the application; costs withheld pursuant to s.119R as no party acted frivolously or vexatiously.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application on 8th April 2003 be dismissed
  • No order as to cost