HARKISHINDAS NAROOMAL HARILELA v. CHIK TAO CHING AND ANOTHER

HARKISHINDAS NAROOMAL HARILELA v. CHIK TAO CHING AND ANOTHER

Defendants, by relying on and placing the deed of partnership before the court and asserting that possession issues depend on its interpretation and factual implementation, provided sufficient particulars to show cause to resist summary judgment; accordingly conditional leave to defend was granted subject to specified pecuniary payments and procedural directions, failing which plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

Citation
HARKISHINDAS NAROOMAL HARILELA v. CHIK TAO CHING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Harkishindas Naroomal Harilela; 1st Defendant: Chik Tao Ching; 2nd Defendant: Peter Tsai Sheng-Lang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 November 1970
Case Number
HCA1527/1970
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Possession (summary Judgment Under Order 14) / Application for Summary Judgment; Leave to Defend Granted Conditionally
Outcome
Conditional leave to defend granted; in default of compliance with pecuniary conditions plaintiff entitled to judgment as claimed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Assignment/subletting, Licence Vs Sub Demise, Mesne Profits, Partnership Agreement
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Assignment/subletting Licence Vs Sub Demise Mesne Profits Partnership Agreement

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harkishindas Naroomal Harilela

Plaintiff

Chik Tao Ching

1st Defendant

Peter Tsai Sheng-Lang

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Possession (summary Judgment Under Order 14) / Application for Summary Judgment; Leave to Defend Granted Conditionally

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of partnership amounts to a sub-demise/assignment or a mere licence
  2. 2 Whether defendants have shown cause to resist summary judgment under Order 14
  3. 3 Whether particulars provided by defendants are sufficient to justify defending

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants, by relying on and placing the deed of partnership before the court and asserting that possession issues depend on its interpretation and factual implementation, provided sufficient particulars to show cause to resist summary judgment; accordingly conditional leave to defend was granted subject to specified pecuniary payments and procedural directions, failing which plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

Court Disposition

Conditional leave to defend granted; in default of compliance with pecuniary conditions plaintiff entitled to judgment as claimed

Orders

  • 1st defendant to pay $15,000 to plaintiff's solicitors within 7 days as rent/mesne profits for September, October and November 1970
  • 1st defendant to pay $5,000 on 1 December 1970 and on the first day of each succeeding month until judgment as monthly rent/mesne profits