HO MING KONG AND OTHERS v. CHOW WONG HING AND OTHERS

HO MING KONG AND OTHERS v. CHOW WONG HING AND OTHERS

The judge accepted plaintiffs' evidence (rent receipts, joint surveyor report, photograph and contemporaneous complaints) and rejected inconsistent and vague defendant evidence, concluding the first defendant's tenancy covered the whole of subsections A10–A12; therefore plaintiffs were entitled to possession, mesne profits and costs, with indemnity costs from 22 June under Order 22, Rule 24 because the defendants' offer to buy the land was not a proper sanctioned-offer basis to deny indemnity costs.

Citation
HO MING KONG AND OTHERS v. CHOW WONG HING AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HO MING KONG; 2nd Plaintiff: HO MING POR; 3rd Plaintiff: HO MING HOI; 1st Defendant: CHOW WONG HING & CHOW WONG CHUN trading as CHOW YEUNG KEE; 2nd Defendant: CHOW SAU LING trading as LING LING SUPERMARK; 3rd Defendant: WAN TAT TRADING COMPANY (a partnership); 4th Defendant: CHAN KEING SHING trading as REAL GOLD COMPANY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2010
Case Number
HCA2829/2004
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute Possession and Tenancy (mesne Profits) / Final Judgment and Remitted to Master for Assessment of Damages and Mesne Profits
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Possession, Tenancy, Mesne Profits, Sanctioned Offer, Costs on Indemnity Basis
Source Language
EN
Property Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Costs Possession Tenancy Mesne Profits Sanctioned Offer +1 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HO MING KONG

1st Plaintiff

HO MING POR

2nd Plaintiff

HO MING HOI

3rd Plaintiff

CHOW WONG HING & CHOW WONG CHUN trading as CHOW YEUNG KEE

1st Defendant

CHOW SAU LING trading as LING LING SUPERMARK

2nd Defendant

WAN TAT TRADING COMPANY (a partnership)

3rd Defendant

CHAN KEING SHING trading as REAL GOLD COMPANY

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute Possession and Tenancy (mesne Profits) / Final Judgment and Remitted to Master for Assessment of Damages and Mesne Profits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy granted to defendants covered the whole of subsections 10,11 and 12 of Section A of Lot 727 or only the sheds/kitchen
  2. 2 Whether second to fourth defendants had acquired rights by possession (12 years) or other occupation
  3. 3 Entitlement to mesne profits and costs and applicability of Order 22, Rule 24 sanctioned offer provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The judge accepted plaintiffs' evidence (rent receipts, joint surveyor report, photograph and contemporaneous complaints) and rejected inconsistent and vague defendant evidence, concluding the first defendant's tenancy covered the whole of subsections A10–A12; therefore plaintiffs were entitled to possession, mesne profits and costs, with indemnity costs from 22 June under Order 22, Rule 24 because the defendants' offer to buy the land was not a proper sanctioned-offer basis to deny indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • Possession awarded to plaintiffs
  • Matter remitted to the Master for assessment of damages and mesne profits