TSANG SHU WO AND ANOTHER v. PERSON UNKNOWN IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO. 2643RP IN D.D.120, YUEN LONG, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

TSANG SHU WO AND ANOTHER v. PERSON UNKNOWN IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO. 2643RP IN D.D.120, YUEN LONG, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

The 2013 and 2019 head leases were void for want of unanimous consent of the registered Managers of the Tso; tenancy by estoppel cannot bind a third party/stranger such as the 2nd Defendant; accordingly the Plaintiffs could not establish a valid sub-tenancy entitling them to possession and the action was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 293
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TSANG SHU WO; 2nd Plaintiff: MAN CHEUNG LAM; 1st Defendant: Person unknown in occupation of Lot No. 2643RP in D.D.120, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong; 2nd Defendant: CHEUNG KWAN HO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Case Number
HCMP3279/2013
Procedural Posture
Possession (order 113, Rules of the High Court) / Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Sub Tenancy, Licence to Occupy, Tenancy by Estoppel, Validity of Leases, Tso Managers Unanimity, Locus Standi
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Trusts Civil Procedure Sub Tenancy Licence to Occupy Tenancy by Estoppel Validity of Leases +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSANG SHU WO

1st Plaintiff

MAN CHEUNG LAM

2nd Plaintiff

Person unknown in occupation of Lot No. 2643RP in D.D.120, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong

1st Defendant

CHEUNG KWAN HO

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession (order 113, Rules of the High Court) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the head tenancies were validly granted by the Tso and its Managers
  2. 2 Whether the grant of the sub-tenancies breached the terms of the head tenancies
  3. 3 Whether sub-tenancies granted by one of joint tenants are valid

Ratio Decidendi

The 2013 and 2019 head leases were void for want of unanimous consent of the registered Managers of the Tso; tenancy by estoppel cannot bind a third party/stranger such as the 2nd Defendant; accordingly the Plaintiffs could not establish a valid sub-tenancy entitling them to possession and the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Order nisi that the costs of this action be paid by the Plaintiffs, to be taxed if not agreed
  • 2nd Defendant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations