STAR CHINA INVESTMENT LTD v. THE FIRST TELEPHONE MOTEL CO LTD

STAR CHINA INVESTMENT LTD v. THE FIRST TELEPHONE MOTEL CO LTD

The Tribunal refused to adjourn, found applicants had proved rent arrears and entitlement to possession and mesne profits, held that a related District Court action for damages/set-off did not prevent the Tribunal proceeding because rent obligations are independent and the Lands Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's unliquidated counterclaim for set-off, and therefore the original orders for possession, mesne profits and costs were upheld; the application for review was not entertained as it raised no new matters.

Citation
STAR CHINA INVESTMENT LTD v. THE FIRST TELEPHONE MOTEL CO LTD
Parties
Applicant (owner of Flat 18): A18 Limited; Applicant (owner of Flat 20): Star China Investment Limited; Tenant: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 March 2016
Case Number
LDPD80/2016
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession and Rent Arrears / Hearing at Lands Tribunal and Subsequent Application for Review of Tribunal Orders
Outcome
Application for review not entertained; original orders upheld
Legal Topics
Repossession, Mesne Profits, Set Off, Adjournment, Jurisdiction of Lands Tribunal
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Tribunal Review Jurisdictional Law Repossession Mesne Profits Set Off Adjournment +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A18 Limited

Applicant (owner of Flat 18)

Star China Investment Limited

Applicant (owner of Flat 20)

Respondent

Tenant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession and Rent Arrears / Hearing at Lands Tribunal and Subsequent Application for Review of Tribunal Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was in arrears of rent and whether applicants proved entitlement to possession
  2. 2 Whether the Lands Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's counterclaim/set-off for damages
  3. 3 Whether adjournment was required due to illness of respondent's general manager and alleged lack of receipt of exhibits

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused to adjourn, found applicants had proved rent arrears and entitlement to possession and mesne profits, held that a related District Court action for damages/set-off did not prevent the Tribunal proceeding because rent obligations are independent and the Lands Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's unliquidated counterclaim for set-off, and therefore the original orders for possession, mesne profits and costs were upheld; the application for review was not entertained as it raised no new matters.

Court Disposition

Application for review not entertained; original orders upheld

Orders

  • Respondent to deliver vacant possession of Flat 18 to the 1st applicant (A18 Limited).
  • Respondent to pay 1st applicant arrears of rent/mesne profits at the rate of HKD 15,000 per month from 1 February 2016 until delivery of vacant possession.