CHU PAK SANG v. LAW YIN FOON AND OTHERS

CHU PAK SANG v. LAW YIN FOON AND OTHERS

The consent order unambiguously required payment to the applicant; the applicant, although not the registered owner, was entitled to receive rent under the extended statutory definition of 'landlord' and under the consent order; cashier's orders payable to the registered owner did not constitute payment to the applicant and were therefore not compliance with the order; payment had not been made to the applicant and ejectment was justified; monies paid into court were to be released to the applicant.

Citation
CHU PAK SANG v. LAW YIN FOON AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Chu Pak Sang; 1st Respondent: Law Yin Foon; 2nd Respondent: Chu Sai Wong; 3rd Respondent: Hung Min
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 September 1982
Case Number
LDPA6/1981
Procedural Posture
Part I Application Under Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance Cap.7 for Ejectment / Heard and Determined by Lands Tribunal After Transfer of Jurisdiction From Tenancy Tribunal; Final Decision Granting Ejectment
Outcome
Application for ejectment granted against all respondents
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Consent Order Enforcement, Tender of Payment, Extended Statutory Definition of Landlord, Jurisdictional Transfer, Payment Into Court
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Civil Procedure Ejectment Consent Order Enforcement Tender of Payment Extended Statutory Definition of Landlord Jurisdictional Transfer +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chu Pak Sang

Applicant

Law Yin Foon

1st Respondent

Chu Sai Wong

2nd Respondent

Hung Min

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Part I Application Under Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance Cap.7 for Ejectment / Heard and Determined by Lands Tribunal After Transfer of Jurisdiction From Tenancy Tribunal; Final Decision Granting Ejectment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment had been properly tendered but wrongly rejected when cashier's orders were payable to registered owner not applicant
  2. 2 Whether respondents could challenge or avoid the prior consent order they had agreed to
  3. 3 Whether the applicant qualified as "landlord" under the extended statutory definition despite not being registered owner

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order unambiguously required payment to the applicant; the applicant, although not the registered owner, was entitled to receive rent under the extended statutory definition of 'landlord' and under the consent order; cashier's orders payable to the registered owner did not constitute payment to the applicant and were therefore not compliance with the order; payment had not been made to the applicant and ejectment was justified; monies paid into court were to be released to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for ejectment granted against all respondents

Orders

  • Judgment for possession (ejectment) granted to applicant
  • All monies paid into Court by respondents to be paid out to the applicant