SUEN KIT CHING v. CHAN CHOW KA CHAI AND ANOTHER

SUEN KIT CHING v. CHAN CHOW KA CHAI AND ANOTHER

The occupation permit for the premises was dated after 16 August 1945 (1949), so the premises were not Part I and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant possession under Part I; amendment to Part II was refused because it was sought at a late stage after all evidence was adduced and the statutory bases differ; because the application was obviously unsustainable as a matter of law the applicant's conduct was frivolous in the wider sense and the Tribunal had discretion under s.43A to award costs, which were exercised in favour of 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
Judgment Date
22 February 1984
Case Number
LDLA3/1982
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Possession Application Under Part I of Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance / Hearing and Judgment on Amendment and Costs
Outcome
Application for possession dismissed; costs awarded to 2nd respondent.
Legal Topics
Part I V Part II Classification of Premises, Jurisdictional Challenge, Amendment of Proceedings, Meaning of "frivolous or Vexatious" for Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Civil Procedure — Costs Statutory Interpretation Part I V Part II Classification of Premises Jurisdictional Challenge Amendment of Proceedings Meaning of "frivolous or Vexatious" for Costs

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
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 — Possession Application Under Part I of Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance / Hearing and Judgment on Amendment and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit premises fell within Part I given the date of the occupation permit
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Part I
  3. 3 Whether to allow amendment to proceed under Part II at a late stage

Ratio Decidendi

The occupation permit for the premises was dated after 16 August 1945 (1949), so the premises were not Part I and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant possession under Part I; amendment to Part II was refused because it was sought at a late stage after all evidence was adduced and the statutory bases differ; because the application was obviously unsustainable as a matter of law the applicant's conduct was frivolous in the wider sense and the Tribunal had discretion under s.43A to award costs, which were exercised in favour of the 2nd respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for possession dismissed; costs awarded to 2nd respondent.

Orders

  • Application for possession dismissed.
  • 2nd respondent awarded costs of and occasioned by this application in accordance with the upper District Scale to be taxed if not agreed.