TANG HOI WO v. WELL LUCK (H.K.) LTD

TANG HOI WO v. WELL LUCK (H.K.) LTD

The court granted defendants leave to defend both actions but only on strict payment conditions into court because the defendants' pleaded case was shadowy yet raised issues warranting a defence; the court refused all injunctions because of inexcusable delay, inadequate evidence of covenant breach, insufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TANG HOI WO v. WELL LUCK (H.K.) LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendants: Defendants; Landowner: Tang Kwong Yu Tong
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 April 2005
Case Number
HCA1568/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Trespass/possession/injunction / Interlocutory (order 14 Leave to Defend Hearing and Applications for Injunctions)
Outcome
Leave to defend granted subject to specified payments into court; all injunction summonses dismissed; costs allocated as ordered.
Legal Topics
Tenancy, Sub Tenancy, Trespass, Injunction, Order 14 Leave to Defend, Undertaking in Damages, Advance Rent, Account of Profits
Source Language
en
Landlord and Tenant Property Civil Procedure Equity Injunctions Damages Tenancy Sub Tenancy +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendants

Defendants

Tang Kwong Yu Tong

Landowner

Procedural Posture

Civil Trespass/possession/injunction / Interlocutory (order 14 Leave to Defend Hearing and Applications for Injunctions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have a tenable right to possession (tenancy or sub-tenancy) or are trespassers
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' pleaded defence is sufficiently credible to justify leave to defend subject to conditions under Order 14
  3. 3 Whether to grant interlocutory injunctions restraining use of the lots and/or ordering delivery of possession

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted defendants leave to defend both actions but only on strict payment conditions into court because the defendants' pleaded case was shadowy yet raised issues warranting a defence; the court refused all injunctions because of inexcusable delay, inadequate evidence of covenant breach, insufficient fortification of the plaintiff's undertaking and because any injunction would conflict with the rationale for conditional leave to defend.

Court Disposition

Leave to defend granted subject to specified payments into court; all injunction summonses dismissed; costs allocated as ordered.

Orders

  • Leave to defendants to defend both actions subject to payment conditions.
  • Defendants to pay into court in an interest-bearing account: a sum of $3775,000 on or before 14 April 2005, a sum of $378,000 on or before 28 April 2005 and further sums of $60,000 per month on or before the first day of each month commencing May 2005; if defendants vacate the lots by end of December 2005 no further...