LEUNG KIN HUNG v. CHENG MUI

LEUNG KIN HUNG v. CHENG MUI

The District Judge erred in requiring absolute certainty of the intended marriage; the correct test under s.53(2)(b) is whether the claimant reasonably requires the premises based on the likelihood shown by the evidence and credibility of witnesses, and the fact of purchase over tenants' heads carries little weight under the post-1980 statutory regime; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for retrial.

Citation
LEUNG KIN HUNG v. CHENG MUI
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Leung Kin Hung; Respondent/defendant: Cheng Mui
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 June 1982
Case Number
HCMP730/1982
Procedural Posture
Application for Possession (section 53(2)(b)) / Application for Leave to Appeal Refused by District Judge; Leave Granted by Court of Appeal and Substantive Appeal Heard
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; matter remitted to the District Court for a new trial before another judge
Legal Topics
Section 53(2)(b), Manifest Injustice, Order 59 R.3(2) Compliance, Leave to Appeal, Possession Orders, Purchase Over Tenants' Heads
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Property Law Appeal Section 53(2)(b) Manifest Injustice Order 59 R.3(2) Compliance Leave to Appeal +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leung Kin Hung

Appellant/plaintiff

Cheng Mui

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Possession (section 53(2)(b)) / Application for Leave to Appeal Refused by District Judge; Leave Granted by Court of Appeal and Substantive Appeal Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff reasonably requires the premises as a residence under s.53(2)(b) given an intended future marriage
  2. 2 Whether making an order for possession would be manifestly unjust to the defendant and other occupiers
  3. 3 Whether the Notice of Motion complied with Order 59 r.3(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred in requiring absolute certainty of the intended marriage; the correct test under s.53(2)(b) is whether the claimant reasonably requires the premises based on the likelihood shown by the evidence and credibility of witnesses, and the fact of purchase over tenants' heads carries little weight under the post-1980 statutory regime; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; matter remitted to the District Court for a new trial before another judge

Orders

  • Allow appeal and set aside the District Court judgment
  • Remit the matter to the District Court for a new trial before another judge