DELIGHT SURPLUS LTD v. LAM HUNG

DELIGHT SURPLUS LTD v. LAM HUNG

The new stall, though independent and on government land, stood immediately in front of the demised external wall with only a negligible gap that prevented the landlord's unimpeded use; this is indistinguishable from Toho and thus there was no vacant possession and no arguable defence, so summary judgment for the landlord was warranted.

Citation
DELIGHT SURPLUS LTD v. LAM HUNG
Parties
Landlord: Plaintiff; Tenant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 January 2014
Case Number
DCCJ2691/2013
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Decision on Summons for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Mesne Profits, Injunction, Summary Judgment
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Civil Procedure Vacant Possession Mesne Profits Injunction Summary Judgment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Landlord

Defendant

Tenant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Decision on Summons for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant delivered vacant possession of the premises on expiry of the tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's government licence absolves failure to deliver vacant possession
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has an arguable defence to defeat summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The new stall, though independent and on government land, stood immediately in front of the demised external wall with only a negligible gap that prevented the landlord's unimpeded use; this is indistinguishable from Toho and thus there was no vacant possession and no arguable defence, so summary judgment for the landlord was warranted.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Order in terms of paragraphs (1),(2) and (3) of the summons dated 5 September 2013 (delivery of vacant possession; injunction to remove the wall stall; mesne profits).
  • The orders under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall take effect two months from the date of judgment.