昌興富有限公司（PERFECT CYPRESS LTD）v. 梅寶珠 (MUI PO CHU)

昌興富有限公司（PERFECT CYPRESS LTD）v. 梅寶珠 (MUI PO CHU)

The Respondent's application for review and stay is dismissed because she failed to produce sufficient evidence that the Applicant breached the tenancy or was liable under the Deed of Mutual Covenant or s119V; title documents indicate the broken road was outside the lot boundary and the Applicant was not shown to have caused or permitted the nuisance; consequently there is no basis to set aside the prior judgment except to amend the start date for rates liability to 1 July 2001.

Citation
昌興富有限公司（PERFECT CYPRESS LTD）v. 梅寶珠 (MUI PO CHU)
Parties
Applicant Landlord: Perfect Cypress Limited; Respondent Tenant: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 November 2001
Case Number
LDPD2367/2001
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant (possession and Rent) / Application for Review/stay of Execution and Setting Aside of Prior Judgment Following Possession Order
Outcome
Respondent's application dated 5 November 2001 dismissed except for amendment to previous judgment regarding rates liability; no order as to costs of the review application.
Legal Topics
Possession, Rent Arrears, Breach of Covenant, Quiet Enjoyment, Nuisance, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Title and Easements, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Contract Civil Procedure Possession Rent Arrears Breach of Covenant Quiet Enjoyment +4 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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perfect Cypress Limited

Applicant Landlord

Respondent

Respondent Tenant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant (possession and Rent) / Application for Review/stay of Execution and Setting Aside of Prior Judgment Following Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's review application and stay of execution should set aside previous possession and payment orders
  2. 2 Whether the location and presence of a broken tree on an adjacent road amounted to breach of the tenancy or a nuisance actionable against the landlord
  3. 3 Construction and effect of the tenancy agreement and the Deed of Mutual Covenant between owners and manager

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent's application for review and stay is dismissed because she failed to produce sufficient evidence that the Applicant breached the tenancy or was liable under the Deed of Mutual Covenant or s119V; title documents indicate the broken road was outside the lot boundary and the Applicant was not shown to have caused or permitted the nuisance; consequently there is no basis to set aside the prior judgment except to amend the start date for rates liability to 1 July 2001.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application dated 5 November 2001 dismissed except for amendment to previous judgment regarding rates liability; no order as to costs of the review application.

Orders

  • Paragraph 15 (4) of the order of the judgment dated 15 October 2001 amended to read: "The Respondent do pay the Applicant all rates outstanding since 1 July 2001, in the sum of HK$3,334 and continue to pay any further rates due until delivery of vacant possession of the Premises by the Respondent to the Applicant".
  • The Application by the Respondent dated 5 November 2001 be dismissed.