長城物業有限公司 v. KUNG LING YEN

長城物業有限公司 v. KUNG LING YEN

Leave to appeal was refused because the Deputy Adjudicator made unchallenged findings of fact that the landlord provided addresses, no error of law was identified in her interpretation of the LTCO or the EAA Circular, and the proposed grounds of appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success under s.28(1) Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 139
Parties
Claimant (appellant) in HCSA 35/2022; Defendant (appellant) in HCSA 36/2022: Kung Ling Yen; 1st Defendant (1st Respondent) in HCSA 35/2022: 林慧翔; 2nd Defendant (2nd Respondent) in HCSA 35/2022: Tsao Oi Lin; 3rd Defendant (3rd Respondent) in HCSA 35/2022; Claimant (respondent) in HCSA 36/2022: Cheong Shing Property Company Limited; Claimant (respondent) in HCSA 36/2022: 長城物業有限公司
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2023
Case Number
HCSA36/2022
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeals to Court of First Instance / Application for Leave to Appeal on Point of Law; Decision on Leave Applications
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Agreement Enforceability, Landlord Address Requirement, Statutory Interpretation of LTCO Provisions, Duties of Estate Agents Under EAA Circular, Leave to Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Law Estate Agency Regulation Civil Procedure (appeal) Tenancy Agreement Enforceability Landlord Address Requirement Statutory Interpretation of LTCO Provisions Duties of Estate Agents Under EAA Circular +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kung Ling Yen

Claimant (appellant) in HCSA 35/2022; Defendant (appellant) in HCSA 36/2022

林慧翔

1st Defendant (1st Respondent) in HCSA 35/2022

Tsao Oi Lin

2nd Defendant (2nd Respondent) in HCSA 35/2022

Cheong Shing Property Company Limited

3rd Defendant (3rd Respondent) in HCSA 35/2022; Claimant (respondent) in HCSA 36/2022

長城物業有限公司

Claimant (respondent) in HCSA 36/2022

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeals to Court of First Instance / Application for Leave to Appeal on Point of Law; Decision on Leave Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a landlord must provide a physical address on a formal tenancy agreement for the agreement to be enforceable
  2. 2 Whether s.119RA/s.119L LTCO or Estate Agents Ordinance/EAA Circular create a contractual or anticipatory breach when address not provided
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Adjudicator erred in law in crediting respondents' testimony and applying the EAA Circular and LTCO

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Deputy Adjudicator made unchallenged findings of fact that the landlord provided addresses, no error of law was identified in her interpretation of the LTCO or the EAA Circular, and the proposed grounds of appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success under s.28(1) Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs