WU CHIEH YUN v. HIDEICHI NAKAMURA

WU CHIEH YUN v. HIDEICHI NAKAMURA

The defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable defence: his own emails contradicted the existence of a two-year tenancy and supported that the HK$140,000 were payments to cover rent or guarantees rather than a security deposit; the translation complaint was either abandoned or not raised at the hearing; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
WU CHIEH YUN v. HIDEICHI NAKAMURA
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): WU CHIEH YUN; Defendant (applicant): HIDEICHI NAKAMURA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Case Number
HCMP1805/2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Summary Judgment (dccj 4379/2012) / Court of Appeal Determination on Summons for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Interpreter/translation Issues, Set Off, Security Deposit, Mesne Profits
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Appeal Interpretation/translation Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal Interpreter/translation Issues Set Off +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WU CHIEH YUN

Plaintiff (respondent)

HIDEICHI NAKAMURA

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Summary Judgment (dccj 4379/2012) / Court of Appeal Determination on Summons for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant had an arguable defence to resist summary judgment under O.14
  2. 2 Whether the defendant or his wife was the proper contracting tenant
  3. 3 Whether a two-year tenancy agreement was concluded commencing 5 November 2011

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable defence: his own emails contradicted the existence of a two-year tenancy and supported that the HK$140,000 were payments to cover rent or guarantees rather than a security deposit; the translation complaint was either abandoned or not raised at the hearing; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8) RHC no party may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.