TSUI YIN FONG AND ANOTHER v. EDWARD JOHNSON

TSUI YIN FONG AND ANOTHER v. EDWARD JOHNSON

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice under s63A(2); the summons sought an impermissible and unheard-of form of relief effectively amounting to an attempted amendment which would not succeed and no fresh admissible evidence was shown under Ladd v Marshall.

Citation
TSUI YIN FONG AND ANOTHER v. EDWARD JOHNSON
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TSUI YIN FONG, the Administrator of the estate of TSUI KOON BO (also known as TSUI PO and TSU KUM PO), deceased; 2nd Plaintiff: TSUI MING WAI; Defendant: EDWARD JOHNSON
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 December 2012
Case Number
DCCJ4726/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Possession and Rent (summary Judgment and Writ of Possession) / Post Judgment Application for Leave to Appeal Against District Judge's Decision (leave Application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs (costs order nisi).
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Writ of Possession, Leave to Appeal (s63 A(2)), Stay of Execution, Admission of Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall), Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Appeal Law Evidence Law Summary Judgment Writ of Possession Leave to Appeal (s63 A(2)) Stay of Execution +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSUI YIN FONG, the Administrator of the estate of TSUI KOON BO (also known as TSUI PO and TSU KUM PO), deceased

1st Plaintiff

TSUI MING WAI

2nd Plaintiff

EDWARD JOHNSON

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Possession and Rent (summary Judgment and Writ of Possession) / Post Judgment Application for Leave to Appeal Against District Judge's Decision (leave Application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's summons seeking the court to "accept his counterclaim" is a permissible remedy or an improper attempt to amend pleadings
  3. 3 Whether any fresh evidence should be admitted under the Ladd v Marshall test

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice under s63A(2); the summons sought an impermissible and unheard-of form of relief effectively amounting to an attempted amendment which would not succeed and no fresh admissible evidence was shown under Ladd v Marshall.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs (costs order nisi).

Orders

  • Defendant's summons dated 14 December 2012 for leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs; costs order nisi to become absolute unless an application to vary is made within 14 days