SO CHI HUNG v. LEE CHUN KWAI AND ANOTHER

SO CHI HUNG v. LEE CHUN KWAI AND ANOTHER

The plaintiff, as the Crown licence‑holder, is entitled to possession; the 1st defendant failed to establish that Mr So had apparent or actual authority to bind the plaintiff, so any estoppel at most binds Mr So and cannot defeat the plaintiff's right to possession; accordingly possession is ordered and costs awarded, with a limited stay to allow vacation of the land.

Citation
SO CHI HUNG v. LEE CHUN KWAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: SO CHI HUNG; 1st Defendant: LEE CHUN KWAI; 2nd Defendant: ALL OTHER OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 February 2016
Case Number
DCMP2376/2015
Procedural Posture
Possession Under Order 113 (district Court) / Decision on Originating Summons
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; order for possession granted
Legal Topics
Possession, Licensee V Trespasser, Promissory Estoppel, Apparent Authority, Costs, Stay of Execution
Source Language
EN
Property Landlord and Tenant Equity Civil Procedure Agency Possession Licensee V Trespasser Promissory Estoppel +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SO CHI HUNG

Plaintiff

LEE CHUN KWAI

1st Defendant

ALL OTHER OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Under Order 113 (district Court) / Decision on Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the licence‑holder (plaintiff) is entitled to possession against occupiers
  2. 2 Whether promissory estoppel arising from an alleged representation by a third party (Mr So) can bind the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether Mr So had apparent or actual authority to bind the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, as the Crown licence‑holder, is entitled to possession; the 1st defendant failed to establish that Mr So had apparent or actual authority to bind the plaintiff, so any estoppel at most binds Mr So and cannot defeat the plaintiff's right to possession; accordingly possession is ordered and costs awarded, with a limited stay to allow vacation of the land.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; order for possession granted

Orders

  • Plaintiff do recover possession of the land described in the originating summons (Tai Lung Tsuen, Peng Chau, New Territories; No 66) as delineated on Crown Land Licence No 5179
  • Stay of execution of the order for possession until and including 29 May 2016 to allow the 1st defendant and family to move out