蘇巧章 對 康有成

蘇巧章 對 康有成

The tribunal held that the oral tenancy was valid under Cap.7, the respondent could not contest the applicant's title, forfeiture and possession were lawful after 15 days' non-payment under s126, unstamped oral agreements are not barred as evidence, and therefore the application for leave to appeal and stay had no reasonable prospect and was refused; the possession warrant may be enforced.

Citation
蘇巧章 對 康有成
Parties
Applicant (head Tenant): 蘇巧章; Respondent (sub Tenant): 康有成
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 2012
Case Number
LDPE444/2012
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Possession and Rent Recovery / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution (non Standard Review)
Outcome
Non-standard review application dismissed; leave to appeal refused; stay of execution refused; enforcement of possession warrant permitted
Legal Topics
Possession, Rent Arrears, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Oral Tenancy, Jus Tertii (title Defence), Admissibility of Unstamped Agreements
Source Language
CH
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Evidence (stamp Duty) Possession Rent Arrears Leave to Appeal Stay of Execution +3 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

蘇巧章

Applicant (head Tenant)

康有成

Respondent (sub Tenant)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Possession and Rent Recovery / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution (non Standard Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent's non-payment of rent justified forfeiture and possession
  2. 2 Whether oral tenancy without written/stamped agreement is enforceable and admissible
  3. 3 Whether respondent may challenge applicant's title (jus tertii) as a defence

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that the oral tenancy was valid under Cap.7, the respondent could not contest the applicant's title, forfeiture and possession were lawful after 15 days' non-payment under s126, unstamped oral agreements are not barred as evidence, and therefore the application for leave to appeal and stay had no reasonable prospect and was refused; the possession warrant may be enforced.

Court Disposition

Non-standard review application dismissed; leave to appeal refused; stay of execution refused; enforcement of possession warrant permitted

Orders

  • Dismissed the respondent's non-standard review application filed 28 June 2012
  • Applicant permitted to proceed to enforce the possession warrant already obtained