WONG CHUN YU ALEX AND ANOTHER v. KWONG SIU YIN

WONG CHUN YU ALEX AND ANOTHER v. KWONG SIU YIN

The Tribunal found the respondent has a real prospect of success to challenge parts of the default judgment (notably that two months' deposit had not been set off) and therefore granted leave to defend unconditionally on some sums, required payment into the tribunal of HK$34,000 to defend the balance, amended the judgment and charging order sums and interest, and deleted the 1st applicant from the judgment and charging order.

Citation
WONG CHUN YU ALEX AND ANOTHER v. KWONG SIU YIN
Parties
Applicant (1st Named): Wong Chun Yu Alex; Applicant (2nd Named): Tang Lai Yung; Respondent (tenant): Kwong Siu Yin
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 August 2004
Case Number
LDPD755/1991
Procedural Posture
Lands Tribunal Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Charging Order / Hearing and Decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Default judgment and charging order amended; respondent granted leave to defend on specified sums, unconditional on some sums and conditional on payment into tribunal for others; amendments to parties and interest rate ordered; costs reserved in the cause with certificate for counsel.
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Default Judgment, Charging Order, Distraint, Set Aside Application, Repair Obligations Under Tenancy
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Forfeiture Default Judgment Charging Order Distraint +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Chun Yu Alex

Applicant (1st Named)

Tang Lai Yung

Applicant (2nd Named)

Kwong Siu Yin

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Lands Tribunal Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Charging Order / Hearing and Decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment and charging order should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the respondent validly terminated or abandoned the tenancy due to alleged gas leakage
  3. 3 Whether the charging order nisi was properly served and effect on applicants' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the respondent has a real prospect of success to challenge parts of the default judgment (notably that two months' deposit had not been set off) and therefore granted leave to defend unconditionally on some sums, required payment into the tribunal of HK$34,000 to defend the balance, amended the judgment and charging order sums and interest, and deleted the 1st applicant from the judgment and charging order.

Court Disposition

Default judgment and charging order amended; respondent granted leave to defend on specified sums, unconditional on some sums and conditional on payment into tribunal for others; amendments to parties and interest rate ordered; costs reserved in the cause with certificate for counsel.

Orders

  • Delete the name of the 1st-named Applicant from the judgment and the amended charging order absolute
  • Delete the rate of interest of 11.5% per annum from the amended charging order absolute and substitute the words "judgment rate"