景辰投資有限公司 對 楊志源

景辰投資有限公司 對 楊志源

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge lawfully and independently assessed credibility and evidence, found no proven misrepresentation or sufficient evidence of unauthorised building works, the alleged inconsistencies were immaterial or misunderstood, and the only remedial issue (deduction of two months' deposit) was a clerical error correctable under Order 20 rule 11; accordingly leave was refused and the judgment sum corrected to HK$1,475,712.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 648
Parties
Plaintiff (original); Defendant (counterclaim): Gay View Investment Limited; Defendant (original); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Yeung Chi Yuen
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 July 2022
Case Number
DCCJ4195/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Landlord and Tenant (lease) Dispute / Application for Leave to Appeal Against District Court Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; originating summons dismissed; judgment amended to reduce award to HK$1,475,712; costs of the application ordered against applicant on a temporary basis
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Misrepresentation, Witness Credibility, Permission to Appeal, Correction of Clerical Error
Source Language
CH
Contract Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Appeals Lease Agreement Misrepresentation Witness Credibility Permission to Appeal +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gay View Investment Limited

Plaintiff (original); Defendant (counterclaim)

Yeung Chi Yuen

Defendant (original); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Landlord and Tenant (lease) Dispute / Application for Leave to Appeal Against District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility
  3. 3 Whether alleged misrepresentations about unauthorised building works were proved

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge lawfully and independently assessed credibility and evidence, found no proven misrepresentation or sufficient evidence of unauthorised building works, the alleged inconsistencies were immaterial or misunderstood, and the only remedial issue (deduction of two months' deposit) was a clerical error correctable under Order 20 rule 11; accordingly leave was refused and the judgment sum corrected to HK$1,475,712.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; originating summons dismissed; judgment amended to reduce award to HK$1,475,712; costs of the application ordered against applicant on a temporary basis

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused and originating summons filed 31 March 2022 dismissed
  • Judgment sum amended from HK$1,631,712 to HK$1,475,712 pursuant to District Court Rules Order 20 rule 11 to correct a calculational/clerical error