LIU YING WAH AND OTHERS v. GREAT MACE TRADING CO AND ANOTHER

LIU YING WAH AND OTHERS v. GREAT MACE TRADING CO AND ANOTHER

The Registrar properly exercised a discretion to transfer the action to the Victoria District Court; bringing the premises within Part II removed jurisdiction to grant possession in the High Court but did not strip the High Court of its procedural power to transfer matters to the court vested with substantive jurisdiction under District Court Ordinance s.40; the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
LIU YING WAH AND OTHERS v. GREAT MACE TRADING CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LIU YING WAH; 2nd Plaintiff: WONG SAU YING; 3rd Plaintiff: LIU WAN TIN; 1st Defendant: GREAT MACE TRADING COMPANY; 2nd Defendant: ELI ASHIRI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 December 1980
Case Number
HCA5290/1979
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant; Possession; Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Appeal Against Registrar's Order Transferring Action to Victoria District Court Following Summons for Directions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Registrar's order transferring the action to the Victoria District Court upheld.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Proceedings, District Court Jurisdiction, Possession Orders, Statutory Commencement Bringing Premises Within Part II
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Court Jurisdiction Transfer of Proceedings District Court Jurisdiction Possession Orders Statutory Commencement Bringing Premises Within Part II

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIU YING WAH

1st Plaintiff

WONG SAU YING

2nd Plaintiff

LIU WAN TIN

3rd Plaintiff

GREAT MACE TRADING COMPANY

1st Defendant

ELI ASHIRI

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant; Possession; Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Appeal Against Registrar's Order Transferring Action to Victoria District Court Following Summons for Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar of the High Court had jurisdiction to order transfer of the action to the District Court after the premises were brought within Part II of the Landlord & Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was deprived of all jurisdiction such that the proper order was dismissal for want of jurisdiction rather than transfer
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Kong Hao (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Lau Hung Kwan precluded transfer orders by the Supreme Court/Registrar

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar properly exercised a discretion to transfer the action to the Victoria District Court; bringing the premises within Part II removed jurisdiction to grant possession in the High Court but did not strip the High Court of its procedural power to transfer matters to the court vested with substantive jurisdiction under District Court Ordinance s.40; the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Registrar's order transferring the action to the Victoria District Court upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Order of the Registrar dated 9 October 1980 transferring the action to the Victoria District Court upheld.