FORDTIME INDUSTRIAL LTD v. YIP SHING LAM t/a TRADITIOAL CHINESE NOODLE

FORDTIME INDUSTRIAL LTD v. YIP SHING LAM t/a TRADITIOAL CHINESE NOODLE

On the evidence the Tribunal found Cockloft C did exist (original floor slab likely removed), the applicant held title by assignment and the tenancy agreement was valid; the respondent who occupied under the tenancy is estopped from denying the existence/validity of the tenancy; Cockloft C falls within 'premises' for LTCO purposes; the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order recovery of possession and mesne profits but does not have jurisdiction in this possession application to order specific performance to reinstate the floor slab.

Citation
FORDTIME INDUSTRIAL LTD v. YIP SHING LAM t/a TRADITIOAL CHINESE NOODLE
Parties
Landlord/claimant: Applicant; Tenant/defendant: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 October 2013
Case Number
LDPE757/2012
Procedural Posture
Lands Tribunal Possession Application (landlord and Tenant) / Decision at Trial
Outcome
Application allowed in part: possession and mesne profits granted; specific performance dismissed; costs to applicant.
Legal Topics
Mesne Profits, Tenancy Agreement, Estoppel (tenancy by Estoppel), Specific Performance, Jurisdiction of Lands Tribunal, Interpretation of Deed of Mutual Covenant, Definition of Premises
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Building and Planning Regulation Mesne Profits Tenancy Agreement Estoppel (tenancy by Estoppel) +4 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Landlord/claimant

Respondent

Tenant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Lands Tribunal Possession Application (landlord and Tenant) / Decision at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cockloft C existed as a separate unit and the tenancy agreement for it was valid
  2. 2 Whether Cockloft C constitutes "premises" under the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance (LTCO) such that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under s127A
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is estopped from denying the applicant's title/tenancy rights

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Tribunal found Cockloft C did exist (original floor slab likely removed), the applicant held title by assignment and the tenancy agreement was valid; the respondent who occupied under the tenancy is estopped from denying the existence/validity of the tenancy; Cockloft C falls within 'premises' for LTCO purposes; the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order recovery of possession and mesne profits but does not have jurisdiction in this possession application to order specific performance to reinstate the floor slab.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: possession and mesne profits granted; specific performance dismissed; costs to applicant.

Orders

  • Respondent to deliver vacant possession of Cockloft C to applicant
  • Respondent to pay mesne profits from 1 May 2011 until delivery up of vacant possession