MANDARIN PRODUCTION LTD v. HOLT, LEE

MANDARIN PRODUCTION LTD v. HOLT, LEE

Respondent's explanations for non-payment were unreasonable; applicant was the successful party because arrears were paid only after proceedings commenced; Tribunal's discretion to award costs was properly exercised; summary assessment reducing claim to District Court scale to HK$26,000 was appropriate; endorsement of Form CR109 after commencement did not prevent recovery and s.119R did not preclude a costs order under the Tribunal's common law jurisdiction.

Citation
MANDARIN PRODUCTION LTD v. HOLT, LEE
Parties
Applicant (landlord): Mandarin Production Limited; Respondent (tenant): Holt, Lee
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 November 2017
Case Number
LDPD997/2017
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Possession and Rent Arrears / Review of Costs Decision in Lands Tribunal
Outcome
Review dismissed; decision of 9 June 2017 on costs confirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Rent Arrears, Costs Assessment, Tenancy Agreement Payment Terms, Statutory Notices (cr109), Tribunal Discretion on Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Costs Possession Rent Arrears Costs Assessment Tenancy Agreement Payment Terms Statutory Notices (cr109) +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandarin Production Limited

Applicant (landlord)

Holt, Lee

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Possession and Rent Arrears / Review of Costs Decision in Lands Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs order is appropriate where proceedings are discontinued after arrears are paid post-commencement
  2. 2 Whether the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for non-payment of rent
  3. 3 Appropriate scale and quantum for summary assessment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent's explanations for non-payment were unreasonable; applicant was the successful party because arrears were paid only after proceedings commenced; Tribunal's discretion to award costs was properly exercised; summary assessment reducing claim to District Court scale to HK$26,000 was appropriate; endorsement of Form CR109 after commencement did not prevent recovery and s.119R did not preclude a costs order under the Tribunal's common law jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Review dismissed; decision of 9 June 2017 on costs confirmed

Orders

  • Decision of 9 June 2017 confirmed
  • Application for review by the respondent dismissed