WONG YUEN WAH v. CHUN KING

WONG YUEN WAH v. CHUN KING

A warning in writing for the purposes of s.53(2)(d) is effective only when given after the contractual tenancy has terminated and the tenancy has become a 'continuing' tenancy under s.52; a pre-termination warning is ineffective, therefore the applicant's warning was not effectual and the claim fails.

Citation
WONG YUEN WAH v. CHUN KING
Parties
Applicant (landlord): WONG YUEN WAH; Respondent (tenant): CHUN KING
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 1984
Case Number
LDLA35/1984
Procedural Posture
Possession Application Under Landlord & Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance / Judgment (lands Tribunal)
Outcome
Applicant's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Persistent Failure to Pay Rent, Section 53(2)(d) Warning Requirement, Continuing Tenancy Under Section 52, Termination and Notice to Quit
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Statutory Interpretation Persistent Failure to Pay Rent Section 53(2)(d) Warning Requirement Continuing Tenancy Under Section 52 Termination and Notice to Quit

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG YUEN WAH

Applicant (landlord)

CHUN KING

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Possession Application Under Landlord & Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance / Judgment (lands Tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a warning in writing under s.53(2)(d) is effectual if given while the contractual tenancy still subsists or must be given after the tenancy becomes 'continuing' under s.52
  2. 2 Whether a landlord may serve a warning prior to termination and then immediately obtain possession on expiry of a notice to quit without a further post-termination warning

Ratio Decidendi

A warning in writing for the purposes of s.53(2)(d) is effective only when given after the contractual tenancy has terminated and the tenancy has become a 'continuing' tenancy under s.52; a pre-termination warning is ineffective, therefore the applicant's warning was not effectual and the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicant's claim for possession dismissed for failure to give an effective warning under s.53(2)(d).