LEE WAI-CHOI v. LAM YEE-LAN AND OTHERS

LEE WAI-CHOI v. LAM YEE-LAN AND OTHERS

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the defendants raised bona fide triable issues — notably the allegation of a resulting trust arising from the HK$40,000 payment and questions about whether resignation extinguished proprietary rights — such that summary determination under Order 14 was inappropriate.

Citation
LEE WAI-CHOI v. LAM YEE-LAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Lee Wai-choi; 1st Defendant: Lam Yee-lan; 2nd Defendant: Lee Wah-keung; Third Party: Perpetual Co-operative Building Society Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 February 1973
Case Number
HCA2827/1972
Procedural Posture
Original Jurisdiction / Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14
Outcome
Application dismissed (summary judgment refused)
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Vacant Possession, Trespass, Underlease, Resulting Trust, Resignation From Society Membership, Waiver
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Equity Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Vacant Possession Trespass Underlease +3 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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Wai-choi

Plaintiff

Lam Yee-lan

1st Defendant

Lee Wah-keung

2nd Defendant

Perpetual Co-operative Building Society Ltd.

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Original Jurisdiction / Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff acquired a right to vacant possession under the underlease dated 29 June 1972
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are trespassers or have proprietary rights to occupy the flat
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' payment of HK$40,000 to Mr. Lam Chung-kee created a resulting trust in their favor

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the defendants raised bona fide triable issues — notably the allegation of a resulting trust arising from the HK$40,000 payment and questions about whether resignation extinguished proprietary rights — such that summary determination under Order 14 was inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (summary judgment refused)

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs to the defendants (in any event)