CHUEN MING AND CO LTD v. LI MUN HOK STEVEN AND ANOTHER

CHUEN MING AND CO LTD v. LI MUN HOK STEVEN AND ANOTHER

R2 failed to prove that Li Senior made a clear and unequivocal promise on behalf of the Company to grant exclusive life occupation or that she reasonably relied to her detriment to the extent necessary; the Tenancy Agreement is enforceable against R1 who did not contest; accordingly the Company is entitled to possession and mesne profits at HKD145,000 per month from 1 April 2019 until delivery, and R2's equitable claims are dismissed.

Citation
[2020] HKLdT 14
Parties
Applicant (landlord): The Company; 1st Respondent (tenant): Steven (R1); 2nd Respondent: R2 (wife of R1)
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 April 2020
Case Number
LDPD604/2019
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Delivery of Vacant Possession and Mesne Profits; Equitable Claims by Respondent Based on Promissory Estoppel / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Company's application allowed against R1; R2's promissory estoppel and alternative equitable claims dismissed; possession ordered; mesne profits and costs awarded
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Mesne Profits, Promissory Estoppel Elements, Detrimental Reliance, Jurisdiction of Lands Tribunal, Pleadings and Case Management, Equitable Compensation, Joinder
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Equity and Trusts Promissory Estoppel Civil Procedure and Jurisdiction Costs Vacant Possession Mesne Profits Promissory Estoppel Elements +5 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Company

Applicant (landlord)

Steven (R1)

1st Respondent (tenant)

R2 (wife of R1)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Delivery of Vacant Possession and Mesne Profits; Equitable Claims by Respondent Based on Promissory Estoppel / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased director (Li Senior) made clear and unequivocal promises on behalf of the Company creating a promissory estoppel
  2. 2 Whether R2 reasonably relied to her detriment on any such promise and the extent of any equity arising
  3. 3 Whether any alleged promise by Li Senior can bind the Company given its separate corporate existence and shareholding structure

Ratio Decidendi

R2 failed to prove that Li Senior made a clear and unequivocal promise on behalf of the Company to grant exclusive life occupation or that she reasonably relied to her detriment to the extent necessary; the Tenancy Agreement is enforceable against R1 who did not contest; accordingly the Company is entitled to possession and mesne profits at HKD145,000 per month from 1 April 2019 until delivery, and R2's equitable claims are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Company's application allowed against R1; R2's promissory estoppel and alternative equitable claims dismissed; possession ordered; mesne profits and costs awarded

Orders

  • R1 and R2 do deliver vacant possession of the Property to the Company
  • R1 to pay mesne profits to the Company at HKD145000 per month from 1 April 2019 until delivery of vacant possession