CHAN KWEI CHE, KITTY AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SIU LUNG t/a KWAN KEE ENGINEERING

CHAN KWEI CHE, KITTY AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SIU LUNG t/a KWAN KEE ENGINEERING

The application under Order 14A was dismissed because the crucial factual dispute—whether the licence was in fact non-exclusive or whether the defendant had exclusive possession amounting to ouster—must be resolved before the framed legal question can be determined; the legal issue is interwoven with contested facts...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHAN KWEI CHE, KITTY AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SIU LUNG t/a KWAN KEE ENGINEERING
Parties
Plaintiff (administratrix of the Estate of Leung Tsz Chiu): Chan Kwei Che Kitty; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2007
Case Number
DCCJ5894/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute (mesne Profits/trespass) / Application Under Order 14 a for Determination of a Question of Law (interlocutory) Dismissed
Outcome
Application under Order 14A dismissed
Legal Topics
Mesne Profits, Licence Vs Tenancy, Co Ownership (tenants in Common), Ouster/trespass, Order 14 a Jurisdiction and Suitability
Source Language
en
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Equity Mesne Profits Licence Vs Tenancy Co Ownership (tenants in Common) Ouster/trespass +1 more

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

Parties

Chan Kwei Che Kitty

Plaintiff (administratrix of the Estate of Leung Tsz Chiu)

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute (mesne Profits/trespass) / Application Under Order 14 a for Determination of a Question of Law (interlocutory) Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a licensee granted a non-exclusive licence to occupy and use property is liable to pay mesne profit to a non-consenting co-owner
  2. 2 Whether a licence from the co-owner existed and its terms (non-exclusive vs exclusive)
  3. 3 Whether the occupier had exclusive possession amounting to ouster of the co-owner's estate

Ratio Decidendi

The application under Order 14A was dismissed because the crucial factual dispute—whether the licence was in fact non-exclusive or whether the defendant had exclusive possession amounting to ouster—must be resolved before the framed legal question can be determined; the legal issue is interwoven with contested facts and unsuitable for final determination on interlocutory procedure.

Court Disposition

Application under Order 14A dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Plaintiffs to have costs of and occasioned by this application, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel