21 Jan 2003
The Tribunal found that Pop In Ltd. was the landlord under the three‑party agreement and there was no direct landlord‑tenant relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent; consequently the Lands Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance and the Applicant's application was dismissed.
19 Apr 2002
The 1st and 2nd Agreements were management contracts that created only contractual licences (not leases) because they expressly reserved possession to the plaintiffs and denied creation of any tenancy; there was no proven misrepresentation or reliance that would discharge the 2nd Agreement; the agreements were not rendered illegal by CLO/LMPO as they did not purport to confer exclusive possession or contravene legislative intent; Wong repudiated the 2nd Agreement by ceasing payments and plaintiffs were entitled to rescind, recover damages of HKD 1,470,000 and obtain possession, with mesne pro…