RIGHTOP CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. YAU WING YAN JOYCE AND ANOTHER

RIGHTOP CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. YAU WING YAN JOYCE AND ANOTHER

Plaintiffs, as registered owners, were prima facie entitled to possession; defendants failed to establish a believable principal tenancy or sub-tenancy or that CC had actual or apparent authority to grant such tenancies on plaintiffs' behalf; the documentary anomalies and lack of credible explanation meant no triable issue existed on liability; summary judgment on liability was therefore granted for plaintiffs with mesne profits to be assessed.

Citation
RIGHTOP CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. YAU WING YAN JOYCE AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: RIGHTOP CORPORATION LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: LEEMAN LIMITED; 1st Defendant: YAU WING YAN JOYCE; 2nd Defendant: EUNIQUE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 January 2016
Case Number
HCMP1209/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trespass (originating Summons) / Summary Disposal Hearing and Judgment on Liability Under Order 28 RHC
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs on liability; defendants ordered to deliver vacant possession; mesne profits to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Trespass, Mesne Profits, Summary Disposal, Actual Authority, Apparent Authority, Nemo Dat
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Agency Law Tort (trespass) Civil Procedure Vacant Possession Trespass Mesne Profits +4 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RIGHTOP CORPORATION LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

LEEMAN LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

YAU WING YAN JOYCE

1st Defendant

EUNIQUE LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trespass (originating Summons) / Summary Disposal Hearing and Judgment on Liability Under Order 28 RHC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were in lawful possession as principal tenant or sub-tenant or were trespassers
  2. 2 Whether Canton Century Limited (CC) had actual or apparent authority from plaintiffs to grant tenancies
  3. 3 Whether the alleged principal tenancy and sub-tenancy were credible and raised triable issues

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs, as registered owners, were prima facie entitled to possession; defendants failed to establish a believable principal tenancy or sub-tenancy or that CC had actual or apparent authority to grant such tenancies on plaintiffs' behalf; the documentary anomalies and lack of credible explanation meant no triable issue existed on liability; summary judgment on liability was therefore granted for plaintiffs with mesne profits to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs on liability; defendants ordered to deliver vacant possession; mesne profits to be assessed.

Orders

  • Judgment on liability against 1st and 2nd defendants for damages being mesne profits to be assessed
  • 1st Defendant to deliver vacant possession of Shops G01-G02 to 1st Plaintiff within 7 days from date of order