COLIN VIVIAN WILLIAMS v. KS CHAN

COLIN VIVIAN WILLIAMS v. KS CHAN

Although the CR101 was arguably defective in naming the solicitor as landlord, the applicant had acted upon it (filed CR102/Form 22) thereby removing practical prejudice; the respondent demonstrated a genuine reasonable requirement for the premises under s119E(1)(b); the repealed s35(1) balancing test was inapplicable; result: tenancy terminated and possession and new tenancy terms ordered including acceptance of proposed rent of 20,500 HKD per month.

Citation
COLIN VIVIAN WILLIAMS v. KS CHAN
Parties
Applicant (tenant): Colin Vivian Williams; Respondent (landlord): K.S. Chan (aka Chan Kin Sang)
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 2003
Case Number
LDNT10/2003
Procedural Posture
New Tenancy Application Under Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance / Judgment (21 May 2003)
Outcome
Tenancy terminated; respondent granted right to possession; new tenancy terms agreed and approved by Tribunal.
Legal Topics
New Tenancy, Own Use, Notice Validity (form Cr101), Possession, Hardship, Termination, Rent, Reasonable Requirement
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Civil Procedure New Tenancy Own Use Notice Validity (form Cr101) Possession Hardship +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Vivian Williams

Applicant (tenant)

K.S. Chan (aka Chan Kin Sang)

Respondent (landlord)

Procedural Posture

New Tenancy Application Under Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance / Judgment (21 May 2003)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CR101 notice was validly served and identified the landlord
  2. 2 Whether the respondent reasonably requires the premises for her own occupation under s119E(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the Notice of Opposition was filed within the statutory 14 days

Ratio Decidendi

Although the CR101 was arguably defective in naming the solicitor as landlord, the applicant had acted upon it (filed CR102/Form 22) thereby removing practical prejudice; the respondent demonstrated a genuine reasonable requirement for the premises under s119E(1)(b); the repealed s35(1) balancing test was inapplicable; result: tenancy terminated and possession and new tenancy terms ordered including acceptance of proposed rent of 20,500 HKD per month.

Court Disposition

Tenancy terminated; respondent granted right to possession; new tenancy terms agreed and approved by Tribunal.

Orders

  • Tenancy of the subject premises held by the Applicant terminated on 30 April 2003.
  • Applicant may give back vacant possession to the Respondent by 31 August 2003 (earlier vacation permitted with at least two weeks written notice).