MUTUALBEST LTD v. NGAI WAH KIT

MUTUALBEST LTD v. NGAI WAH KIT

Judge found on balance of probabilities that respondent ran a guesthouse in breach of Clause 1 Schedule II and Clause 3, rejected respondent's evidence of landlord consent and estoppel, and held that because parting with possession could be remediable (per Akici) the Section 58(1) notice failed to specify a reasonable time to remedy; therefore the notice was invalid and no right to forfeiture had accrued, so the possession application failed.

Citation
MUTUALBEST LTD v. NGAI WAH KIT
Parties
Landlord: Applicant (owner of Flat A, 9th Floor, Hoi To Court, No. 275 Gloucester Road, Hong Kong); Tenant: Respondent (tenant)
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2013
Case Number
LDPD1548/2013
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Possession for Breach of Covenant / Judgment (lands Tribunal)
Outcome
Application dismissed; no cause of action for forfeiture accrued
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Breach of Covenant, Estoppel/acquiescence, Section 58 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Guesthouse Licensing
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Equity Conveyancing Forfeiture Breach of Covenant Estoppel/acquiescence Section 58 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant (owner of Flat A, 9th Floor, Hoi To Court, No. 275 Gloucester Road, Hong Kong)

Landlord

Respondent (tenant)

Tenant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Possession for Breach of Covenant / Judgment (lands Tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached Clause 1 Schedule II (residential use) by running a guesthouse/youth hostel
  2. 2 Whether the respondent breached Clause 3 prohibiting assignment/underletting/parting with possession
  3. 3 Whether the applicant consented or acquiesced such that estoppel applies

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found on balance of probabilities that respondent ran a guesthouse in breach of Clause 1 Schedule II and Clause 3, rejected respondent's evidence of landlord consent and estoppel, and held that because parting with possession could be remediable (per Akici) the Section 58(1) notice failed to specify a reasonable time to remedy; therefore the notice was invalid and no right to forfeiture had accrued, so the possession application failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no cause of action for forfeiture accrued

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs order nisi that there be no order as to costs; unless varied by summons, the costs order nisi shall be made absolute upon expiry of 14 days