MAN KAM CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. EBE CHENG

MAN KAM CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. EBE CHENG

The court refused to strike out the plaintiffs' claim: notwithstanding deletion of the Part V pleadings there was sufficient disclosure that the claim was for possession for non‑payment under Part II (s53(2)(a)). The court accepted Part II applied and that the statutory scheme in s54 imposes a joint obligation to sign and lodge the notice; a court may compel compliance by originating summons or equivalent procedural means. The substantive question whether rent is recoverable without the Commissioner‑endorsed notice was left open due to settlement.

Citation
MAN KAM CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. EBE CHENG
Parties
Plaintiff: MAN KAM CHEONG; Plaintiff: MAN YIM HING; Defendant: EBE CHENG
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Case Number
DCCJ9226/1981
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Possession for Non Payment of Rent / Trial Heard and Settled; Judgment Delivered on Settlement
Outcome
Action settled on terms; court made no final adjudication on the substantive enforceability of rent absent a s54 endorsement.
Legal Topics
Possession, Rent Arrears, Statutory Notice Endorsement (section 54), Enforcement of Statutory Obligations, Originating Summons to Compel Signature
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Property Statutory Interpretation Possession Rent Arrears Statutory Notice Endorsement (section 54) Enforcement of Statutory Obligations +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAN KAM CHEONG

Plaintiff

MAN YIM HING

Plaintiff

EBE CHENG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Possession for Non Payment of Rent / Trial Heard and Settled; Judgment Delivered on Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars disclose a cause of action for possession for non-payment of rent under Part II (s53(2)(a)) after deletion of pleaded Part V provision
  2. 2 Whether rent is recoverable where the notice required by s54(3) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance has not been endorsed by the Commissioner
  3. 3 What remedy is available to compel a tenant to sign and lodge the statutory notice (s54)

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out the plaintiffs' claim: notwithstanding deletion of the Part V pleadings there was sufficient disclosure that the claim was for possession for non‑payment under Part II (s53(2)(a)). The court accepted Part II applied and that the statutory scheme in s54 imposes a joint obligation to sign and lodge the notice; a court may compel compliance by originating summons or equivalent procedural means. The substantive question whether rent is recoverable without the Commissioner‑endorsed notice was left open due to settlement.

Court Disposition

Action settled on terms; court made no final adjudication on the substantive enforceability of rent absent a s54 endorsement.

Orders

  • Action settled on terms that each party will bear an equal share of the fees to be incurred for the car parking space.