LI SAU v. SIU YUET TAI AND ANOTHER

LI SAU v. SIU YUET TAI AND ANOTHER

Applicant established a reasonable requirement to occupy one of the two huts but failed the proviso because the Tribunal was not satisfied that refusing possession would cause greater hardship to the applicant than granting possession would cause the tenants; accordingly the application was dismissed and judgment entered for the respondents.

Citation
LI SAU v. SIU YUET TAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant (owner/landlord): LI SAU; 1st Respondent (tenant of Hut 2): SIU YUET TAI; 2nd Respondent (tenant of Hut 3): CHIU TAI MUI
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 September 1982
Case Number
LDPA4/1982
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession Under Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance, Cap.7 S.35(1) (part I Pre War Domestic Premises) / Hearing and Judgment in the Lands Tribunal (first Instance)
Outcome
Application dismissed; judgment for respondents.
Legal Topics
Possession for Owner Occupation, Part I Pre War Domestic Premises, Onus of Proof, Hardship Balancing Test, Crown Resumption Eligibility
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Housing Property Law Statutory Interpretation Possession for Owner Occupation Part I Pre War Domestic Premises Onus of Proof Hardship Balancing Test +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LI SAU

Applicant (owner/landlord)

SIU YUET TAI

1st Respondent (tenant of Hut 2)

CHIU TAI MUI

2nd Respondent (tenant of Hut 3)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession Under Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance, Cap.7 S.35(1) (part I Pre War Domestic Premises) / Hearing and Judgment in the Lands Tribunal (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord reasonably requires the premises for occupation as his own residence under s.35(1)
  2. 2 Whether greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by refusing possession than to the tenants by granting it (proviso to s.35(1))
  3. 3 Proper allocation of onus under s.35(1) and its distinction from s.53(2)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant established a reasonable requirement to occupy one of the two huts but failed the proviso because the Tribunal was not satisfied that refusing possession would cause greater hardship to the applicant than granting possession would cause the tenants; accordingly the application was dismissed and judgment entered for the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; judgment for respondents.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Judgment for respondents.