Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Just and equitable discretion

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 1982

WAN YEE MEI v. LAM CHEONG PANG

Citation

WAN YEE MEI v. LAM CHEONG PANG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4107/1981

Court found the plaintiff's requirement genuine and reasonable, concluded that although eviction would cause substantial hardship to the defendant and other occupants it would not be crushing, and therefore it was not manifestly unjust or inequitable to grant possession; court ordered possession and mesne profits from 1 August 1982 until delivery of vacant possession.
29 Aug 1981

CHIU SUM CHUEN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SI MUI

Citation

CHIU SUM CHUEN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SI MUI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ44/1981

Although the plaintiffs' need for the premises for their three adult sons was found to be genuine and reasonable, the court concluded that balancing the parties' circumstances—particularly the defendant's and her elderly grandmother's limited means, inability to obtain affordable alternative accommodation nearby, and likely severe hardship—made it manifestly not just and equitable to order possession; therefore the claim for possession was dismissed.
21 Jul 1981

HO CHEUNG HING v. LI TAT CHI

Citation

HO CHEUNG HING v. LI TAT CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/1981

The trial judge's finding that the plaintiff did not reasonably require the premises was suspect on the record; because the issue of reasonable requirement and the discretionary just-and-equitable assessment were inadequately resolved and material fresh evidence (respondent's tuberculosis diagnosis) had emerged, the proper course was to allow the appeal and remit the matter for re-trial to consider all evidence.
20 Jun 1980

LEE HO YUEN v. LI CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE HO YUEN v. LI CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2186/1980

Plaintiff established on the balance of probabilities that he reasonably required the premises for residential use; comparing all relevant circumstances and applying the proviso with its 'manifestly not be just and equitable' standard, the court found the 2nd defendant had plainly established that eviction would not be just and equitable and dismissed the claim against him, whereas the 1st defendant failed to meet the heightened burden and the court granted possession to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

WAN YEE MEI v. LAM CHEONG PANG

CHIU SUM CHUEN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SI MUI

HO CHEUNG HING v. LI TAT CHI

LEE HO YUEN v. LI CHI AND ANOTHER