STAR CHINA INVESTMENT LTD v. THE FIRST TELEPHONE MOTEL CO LTD

STAR CHINA INVESTMENT LTD v. THE FIRST TELEPHONE MOTEL CO LTD

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no other interest of justice warranted hearing it; the proposed fresh evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall requirements and was not admitted; the intended sub-tenant had no enforceable right to be added as a party because she was not a party to the tenancy and produced no supporting documents; consequentially the stay of execution was refused.

Citation
STAR CHINA INVESTMENT LTD v. THE FIRST TELEPHONE MOTEL CO LTD
Parties
Applicant: A18 LIMITED; Applicant: THE FIRST TELEPHONE MOTEL COMPANY LIMITED; Tenant: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Case Number
LDPD80/2016
Procedural Posture
Recovery of Possession and Arrears of Rent / Hearing of Interlocutory Applications for Leave to Appeal and Related Reliefs
Outcome
Interlocutory applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Recovery of Possession, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall), Sub Tenancy and Licensing
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Property Law Recovery of Possession Leave to Appeal Stay of Execution Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall) Sub Tenancy and Licensing

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

Parties

A18 LIMITED

Applicant

THE FIRST TELEPHONE MOTEL COMPANY LIMITED

Applicant

Respondent

Tenant

Procedural Posture

Recovery of Possession and Arrears of Rent / Hearing of Interlocutory Applications for Leave to Appeal and Related Reliefs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under Section 11AA(6) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the proposed fresh evidence (affirmation of Ms Yau) meets the Ladd v Marshall criteria
  3. 3 Whether an intended sub-tenant has a right to be added as a party or to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no other interest of justice warranted hearing it; the proposed fresh evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall requirements and was not admitted; the intended sub-tenant had no enforceable right to be added as a party because she was not a party to the tenancy and produced no supporting documents; consequentially the stay of execution was refused.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Application for stay of execution of writ of possession refused