LING TAT MING and Another v. LI YUK SANG

LING TAT MING and Another v. LI YUK SANG

The oral agreement to renew the tenancy was unenforceable under section 3(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance because it was not in writing and signed; the defendant failed to prove the alleged renovation expenditure and produced no supporting receipts or photographs; estoppel did not arise; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for possession with costs.

Citation
LING TAT MING and Another v. LI YUK SANG
Parties
1st Plaintiff (registered Owner): LING TAT MING (also known as LING TAK MING); 2nd Plaintiff (holder of Light Refreshment Restaurant Licence): LING TAO YEUNG; Defendant (tenant): LI YUK SANG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 November 1995
Case Number
HCA10024/1994
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Possession Claim / Final Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs for possession.
Legal Topics
Possession, Tenancy Renewal, Statute of Frauds (writing Requirement), Estoppel, Termination Notice, Mesne Profits
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Contract Conveyancing/statute of Frauds Possession Tenancy Renewal Statute of Frauds (writing Requirement) Estoppel +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LING TAT MING (also known as LING TAK MING)

1st Plaintiff (registered Owner)

LING TAO YEUNG

2nd Plaintiff (holder of Light Refreshment Restaurant Licence)

LI YUK SANG

Defendant (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Possession Claim / Final Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement to renew the tenancy was enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is estopped from denying a renewal
  3. 3 Whether the defendant carried out renovations and is entitled to compensation or to rely on them to resist possession

Ratio Decidendi

The oral agreement to renew the tenancy was unenforceable under section 3(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance because it was not in writing and signed; the defendant failed to prove the alleged renovation expenditure and produced no supporting receipts or photographs; estoppel did not arise; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for possession with costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs for possession.

Orders

  • Possession granted to the plaintiffs
  • Defendant to quit and deliver up vacant possession