KUNG LING YEN v. 林慧翔 AND OTHERS

KUNG LING YEN v. 林慧翔 AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the Deputy Adjudicator made unchallenged findings of fact that the landlord provided various addresses; no error of law was demonstrated in her construction of the LTCO or in her treatment of the EAA Circular; the English authority relied on was not applicable to Hong Kong law; credibility and procedural matters fell within the tribunal's discretion, therefore there is no reasonable prospect of success on a point of law alone.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 139
Parties
Claimant (appellant) / Defendant (appellant): Kung Ling Yen; 1st Defendant (1st Respondent): 林慧翔; 2nd Defendant (2nd Respondent): TSAO OI LIN; 3rd Defendant (3rd Respondent): CHEONG SHING PROPERTY COMPANY LIMITED; Claimant (respondent): 長城物業有限公司
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2023
Case Number
HCSA35/2022
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of First Instance (point of Law)
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Agreement Enforceability, Landlord Address Requirement, Estate Agents Authority Circular Compliance, Leave to Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Estate Agency Civil Procedure Tenancy Agreement Enforceability Landlord Address Requirement Estate Agents Authority Circular Compliance Leave to Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kung Ling Yen

Claimant (appellant) / Defendant (appellant)

林慧翔

1st Defendant (1st Respondent)

TSAO OI LIN

2nd Defendant (2nd Respondent)

CHEONG SHING PROPERTY COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant (3rd Respondent)

長城物業有限公司

Claimant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of First Instance (point of Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a landlord must provide a physical address on a formal tenancy agreement
  2. 2 Whether estate agent breached duties under the Estate Agents Ordinance and EAA Circular
  3. 3 Whether Beitov Properties (UK) authority and s.47 LTA 1987 are applicable in Hong Kong

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Deputy Adjudicator made unchallenged findings of fact that the landlord provided various addresses; no error of law was demonstrated in her construction of the LTCO or in her treatment of the EAA Circular; the English authority relied on was not applicable to Hong Kong law; credibility and procedural matters fell within the tribunal's discretion, therefore there is no reasonable prospect of success on a point of law alone.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs