TSE SHUI YING, THE SOLE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NG KA MUK, DECEASED v. NG CHOI FAR

TSE SHUI YING, THE SOLE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NG KA MUK, DECEASED v. NG CHOI FAR

The court refused summary judgment and declined to determine the legal question under Order 14A because the defendant’s proposed defence—that the uncertain tenancy might be treated as a life tenancy or otherwise raises a real and non‑frivolous point about the applicability of Berrisford in Hong Kong’s leasehold regime—is arguable and requires mature consideration at trial; accordingly the defendant is given unconditional leave to defend and procedural directions were made.

Citation
TSE SHUI YING, THE SOLE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NG KA MUK, DECEASED v. NG CHOI FAR
Parties
Plaintiff (sole Administratrix of the Estate of Ng Ka Muk, Deceased): TSE SHUI YING (謝瑞英); Defendant (daughter of the Deceased): NG CHOI FAR (吳賽花)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2014
Case Number
DCCJ4862/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Landlord and Tenant / Possession / Application for Summary Judgment and Determination Under Order 14 A; Court Declined to Determine and Granted Leave to Defend
Outcome
Application for summary judgment and Order 14A determination refused; unconditional leave to defendant to defend granted.
Legal Topics
Tenancy for Life, Certainty of Term, Leasehold Vs Freehold, Summary Judgment, Order 14 a Determination
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Tenancy for Life Certainty of Term Leasehold Vs Freehold Summary Judgment Order 14 a Determination

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

Parties

TSE SHUI YING (謝瑞英)

Plaintiff (sole Administratrix of the Estate of Ng Ka Muk, Deceased)

NG CHOI FAR (吳賽花)

Defendant (daughter of the Deceased)

Procedural Posture

Civil Landlord and Tenant / Possession / Application for Summary Judgment and Determination Under Order 14 A; Court Declined to Determine and Granted Leave to Defend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenancy for life can be created in Hong Kong where only leasehold estates exist
  2. 2 Whether the purported tenancy is void for uncertainty of term
  3. 3 Whether the purported tenancy is a monthly tenancy determinable by one month’s notice

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused summary judgment and declined to determine the legal question under Order 14A because the defendant’s proposed defence—that the uncertain tenancy might be treated as a life tenancy or otherwise raises a real and non‑frivolous point about the applicability of Berrisford in Hong Kong’s leasehold regime—is arguable and requires mature consideration at trial; accordingly the defendant is given unconditional leave to defend and procedural directions were made.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment and Order 14A determination refused; unconditional leave to defendant to defend granted.

Orders

  • Defendant to file defence (and counterclaim if any) within 28 days from date of decision
  • Plaintiff to file reply (and defence to counterclaim if any) within 28 days thereafter