BAYNARD LTD v. TAM PAK HO

Leave to appeal was refused because the intervener failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal or a reasonable prospect of success; his position was legally untenable and insufficient to justify the matter being heard by the appellate court.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: BAYNARD LTD v. TAM PAK HO
Parties: Plaintiff: BAYNARD LIMITED; Defendant: TAM PAK HO; Intervener: 壬旺上
Court: Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction: Hong Kong
Judgment Date: 31 May 2017
Case Number: HCMP729/2017
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Summary Judgment in a Landlord and Tenant Dispute / Leave to Appeal Application to the Court of Appeal (appellate Division of the High Court)
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; the intervener's 28 March 2017 summons for leave set aside.
Legal Topics: Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Intervention, Costs
Source Language: ch

Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Appeal Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal Intervention Costs

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

BAYNARD LIMITED

Plaintiff

TAM PAK HO

Defendant

壬旺上

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Summary Judgment in a Landlord and Tenant Dispute / Leave to Appeal Application to the Court of Appeal (appellate Division of the High Court)

Legal Issues

1 whether leave to appeal should be granted
2 whether the intervener is the true occupier of the property
3 whether the intervener raised any arguable defence to the plaintiff's summary judgment application

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; the intervener's 28 March 2017 summons for leave set aside.

Orders

Leave to appeal refused.
Intervener's 28 March 2017 summons set aside.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.