JOHN MARK ESSINGTON BOULTON v. LOON KING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

JOHN MARK ESSINGTON BOULTON v. LOON KING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

Assuming without deciding that the Tribunal might have a discretionary power to admit fresh evidence on review, the Tribunal refused to admit post-hearing market evidence and refused to admit evidence that was in the applicant's possession at the time of the hearing; the review is therefore limited to the evidence adduced at the prior hearing and the Tribunal cannot, absent consent, vary the parties' agreed date of determination; accordingly the original rent determination of HKD 29,000 per month is confirmed and the request to change the date of determination is refused.

Citation
JOHN MARK ESSINGTON BOULTON v. LOON KING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD
Parties
Applicant (tenant): John Mark Essington Boulton; Respondent (landlord): Loon King Development Company Limited
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 1983
Case Number
LDLA62/1982
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant (part Iv) Review Application Under S.11 a Lands Tribunal Ordinance / Review of Tribunal Decision (post Judgment)
Outcome
Application to admit fresh evidence refused in part; review confined to evidence adduced at the prior hearing; request to alter date of determination refused; original rent of HKD 29,000 per month confirmed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Review Applications, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Date of Determination, Assessment of Fair Market Rent, Finality of Litigation
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Tribunal Procedure Evidence Law Statutory Interpretation Review Applications Admission of Fresh Evidence Date of Determination +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mark Essington Boulton

Applicant (tenant)

Loon King Development Company Limited

Respondent (landlord)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant (part Iv) Review Application Under S.11 a Lands Tribunal Ordinance / Review of Tribunal Decision (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lands Tribunal has power under s.11A to admit fresh evidence on review
  2. 2 What principles should govern admission of fresh evidence on review
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal can vary the agreed date of determination of fair market rent on review without parties' consent

Ratio Decidendi

Assuming without deciding that the Tribunal might have a discretionary power to admit fresh evidence on review, the Tribunal refused to admit post-hearing market evidence and refused to admit evidence that was in the applicant's possession at the time of the hearing; the review is therefore limited to the evidence adduced at the prior hearing and the Tribunal cannot, absent consent, vary the parties' agreed date of determination; accordingly the original rent determination of HKD 29,000 per month is confirmed and the request to change the date of determination is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to admit fresh evidence refused in part; review confined to evidence adduced at the prior hearing; request to alter date of determination refused; original rent of HKD 29,000 per month confirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Refused admission of fresh evidence of post-hearing market trends
  • Refused admission of fresh evidence available at time of hearing (letter dated 7 July 1982)