TSE KAM v. LAU TAM SAU YING

TSE KAM v. LAU TAM SAU YING

Where a tenant has validly served a counter-notice under s.7(6) the statutory scheme (notably s.7(7) and s.16(6)) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the District Court to determine such applications; therefore the Supreme Court should transfer the proceedings to the District Court to avoid duplication and because the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TSE KAM v. LAU TAM SAU YING
Parties
Plaintiff (landlord): Tse Kam; Defendant (tenant): Lau Tam Sau Ying
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 December 1970
Case Number
HCA1309/1970
Procedural Posture
Action for Possession (landlord and Tenant) / Order to Transfer Proceedings to District Court Under Section 11 of Cap.336
Outcome
Proceedings transferred to the District Court under section 11 of the District Court (Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure) Ordinance (Cap.336).
Legal Topics
Possession, Notice to Quit, Counter Notice, Transfer of Proceedings, District Court Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Landlord and Tenant Law Rent Control Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Possession Notice to Quit Counter Notice Transfer of Proceedings +1 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tse Kam

Plaintiff (landlord)

Lau Tam Sau Ying

Defendant (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Action for Possession (landlord and Tenant) / Order to Transfer Proceedings to District Court Under Section 11 of Cap.336

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a counter-notice under s.7(6) was validly served within 14 days
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to try the action where a valid counter-notice has been served
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the District Court to avoid duplication and because of statutory exclusivity

Ratio Decidendi

Where a tenant has validly served a counter-notice under s.7(6) the statutory scheme (notably s.7(7) and s.16(6)) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the District Court to determine such applications; therefore the Supreme Court should transfer the proceedings to the District Court to avoid duplication and because the District Court has jurisdiction to hear the action.

Court Disposition

Proceedings transferred to the District Court under section 11 of the District Court (Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure) Ordinance (Cap.336).

Orders

  • Proceedings transferred to the District Court under section 11 of the District Court (Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure) Ordinance (Cap.336).