SUEN KIT CHING v. CHAN CHOW KA CHAI AND ANOTHER

SUEN KIT CHING v. CHAN CHOW KA CHAI AND ANOTHER

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Part I because the occupation permit was issued after 16 August 1945; the applicant's claim under Part I was therefore obviously unsustainable and, having adduced the occupation permit before trial, the applicant's conduct amounted to 'frivolous' in the sense of being manifestly unsustainable; consequently the Tribunal exercised its restricted discretion under s43A to award costs to the 2nd respondent.

Citation
SUEN KIT CHING v. CHAN CHOW KA CHAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Suen Kit Ching; 1st Respondent: Chan Chow Ka Chai; 2nd Respondent: Chow Cheung Kee
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Case Number
LDPA3/1982
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Part I Application (possession) / Hearing and Final Judgment on Liability and Costs
Outcome
Application for possession dismissed; costs awarded to 2nd respondent
Legal Topics
Costs, Amendment of Pleadings, Jurisdiction, Possession, Prewar Premises Classification
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Costs Amendment of Pleadings Jurisdiction Possession Prewar Premises Classification

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suen Kit Ching

Applicant

Chan Chow Ka Chai

1st Respondent

Chow Cheung Kee

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Part I Application (possession) / Hearing and Final Judgment on Liability and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit premises qualified as Part I (prewar) premises
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Part I given occupation permit date
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct was frivolous or vexatious for costs under s43A et seq.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Part I because the occupation permit was issued after 16 August 1945; the applicant's claim under Part I was therefore obviously unsustainable and, having adduced the occupation permit before trial, the applicant's conduct amounted to 'frivolous' in the sense of being manifestly unsustainable; consequently the Tribunal exercised its restricted discretion under s43A to award costs to the 2nd respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for possession dismissed; costs awarded to 2nd respondent

Orders

  • Application for possession dismissed
  • Costs to 2nd respondent to be paid in accordance with the upper District Scale to be taxed if not agreed