鄧琳 對 天薈僱傭有限公司

鄧琳 對 天薈僱傭有限公司

Respondent had notice of the hearing and could have appointed a representative; medical notes were insufficient and respondent delayed producing evidence; respondent's factual case (claims of overpayment) was inconsistent and the respondent was an unreliable witness with no real prospect of success; setting aside the order would cause uncompensable prejudice to the applicant, therefore the non‑substantive applications to suspend/set aside the Tribunal's order were dismissed and the 22 January 2021 order upheld.

Citation
[2021] HKLdT 33
Parties
申請人: 鄧琳; 答辯人: 天薈僱傭有限公司
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 May 2021
Case Number
LDPE1479/2020
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Possession and Rent / Post Judgment Applications to Set Aside/stay Order (non Substantive Rehearing)
Outcome
Non-substantive applications dated 4 February 2021 and 31 March 2021 dismissed; the Tribunal's 22 January 2021 order is maintained and the applicant may proceed to execute the possession order obtained on 2 March 2021.
Legal Topics
Possession, Rent Arrears, Application to Set Aside Judgment, Adjournment, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
CH
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Contract Possession Rent Arrears Application to Set Aside Judgment Adjournment Credibility of Witnesses

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

鄧琳

申請人

天薈僱傭有限公司

答辯人

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Possession and Rent / Post Judgment Applications to Set Aside/stay Order (non Substantive Rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should suspend or set aside its 22 January 2021 order
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance at the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has a real prospect of success on the merits (payment/overpayment defence)

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent had notice of the hearing and could have appointed a representative; medical notes were insufficient and respondent delayed producing evidence; respondent's factual case (claims of overpayment) was inconsistent and the respondent was an unreliable witness with no real prospect of success; setting aside the order would cause uncompensable prejudice to the applicant, therefore the non‑substantive applications to suspend/set aside the Tribunal's order were dismissed and the 22 January 2021 order upheld.

Court Disposition

Non-substantive applications dated 4 February 2021 and 31 March 2021 dismissed; the Tribunal's 22 January 2021 order is maintained and the applicant may proceed to execute the possession order obtained on 2 March 2021.

Orders

  • The respondent's two non-substantive applications to stay/set aside the Tribunal's order are dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's order dated 22 January 2021 is confirmed and remains in effect.