張加慶 v. 何端洲

張加慶 v. 何端洲

The Tribunal held that the applicant, having signed the tenancy agreement in his personal capacity and having received rent, was to be treated as the landlord for purposes of the possession application; tenancy by estoppel barred the respondent from denying that status; therefore the applicant was entitled to sue and to authorize a representative and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no other interest of justice to justify leave out of time.

Citation
張加慶 v. 何端洲
Parties
Applicant / Landlord: Cheung Ka Hing; Respondent / Tenant: Respondent; Alleged True Owner: Cheung Kwan Tai Ui
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 2014
Case Number
LDPD81/2014
Procedural Posture
Possession / Tenancy Dispute (lands Tribunal) / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy by Estoppel, Authority to Sue, Leave to Appeal, Costs
Source Language
EN
Land Law Tenancy Law Civil Procedure Appeal Procedure Tenancy by Estoppel Authority to Sue Leave to Appeal Costs

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Ka Hing

Applicant / Landlord

Respondent

Respondent / Tenant

Cheung Kwan Tai Ui

Alleged True Owner

Procedural Posture

Possession / Tenancy Dispute (lands Tribunal) / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, having signed the tenancy agreement and received rent, was the landlord entitled to bring proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had authority to authorize a representative to act in the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the applicant, having signed the tenancy agreement in his personal capacity and having received rent, was to be treated as the landlord for purposes of the possession application; tenancy by estoppel barred the respondent from denying that status; therefore the applicant was entitled to sue and to authorize a representative and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no other interest of justice to justify leave out of time.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed
  • Respondent to pay applicant's costs in the sum of $500 HKD