Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Manifest injustice

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 1990

LEUNG SUK FONG v. CHAN CHING WAH

Citation

LEUNG SUK FONG v. CHAN CHING WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV147/1990

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge did not misapply the law or burden; he acted within his discretion in setting aside the ex parte judgment because the respondent's affidavit disclosed matters (long occupation, denial of notice, challenge to reasonable requirement) that warranted inter partes adjudication and a trial to determine possession rather than letting judgment stand by default.
9 May 1986

CHU CHI CHEONG v. FUNG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU CHI CHEONG v. FUNG KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV23/1986

The Presiding Officer correctly applied the proviso to s.53(2)(b), found that eviction would be manifestly unjust (calamitous) to the tenant, and absent any shown error of law or consideration of improper matters the Court of Appeal will not substitute its judgment; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
6 Jan 1984

KWOK KAM CHIU AND ANOTHER v. CHIU SUI HAR AND OTHERS

Citation

KWOK KAM CHIU AND ANOTHER v. CHIU SUI HAR AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV122/1983

The Court allowed the appeal because the Presiding Officer erred in finding the appellants did not reasonably require the premises and in concluding without reasons that it would be manifestly unjust to grant possession; on the evidence no reasonable tribunal could have refused possession and the appellants were entitled to an order for possession to take effect after a reasonable time.
9 Nov 1983

NG YUK YUEN v. WAI LAN WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG YUK YUEN v. WAI LAN WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/1983

Appeal allowed because the tribunal failed to consider the tenant's husband's pension and impermissibly compared hardship by reference to the landlord's sons' earning potential; the matter is remitted for retrial before another judge on whether making an order for possession would result in manifest injustice or inequity to the tenant.
26 Apr 1983

KAM SHING KI v. FAN KAM AND OTHERS

Citation

KAM SHING KI v. FAN KAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/1983

The Court of Appeal held that on the evidence the trial judge could reasonably find that no manifest injustice or inequity would result from making the possession order and that the appellate court should not interfere where a reasonable judge properly directing himself could reach that conclusion; therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the order for possession affirmed.
5 Nov 1982

WONG CHI SHING v. CHEUNG CHOI LEE

Citation

WONG CHI SHING v. CHEUNG CHOI LEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV95/1982

Appeal allowed: a court may grant possession under s.53(2)(b) of only that part of premises occupied by the tenant without affecting lawful sub-tenants; s.53(6) does not compel an order against lawful sub-tenants when an order is made against a tenant and s.53(6A) provides that sub-tenants not ordered against hold directly from the landlord; on the facts the respondent failed to discharge the proviso burden that it would be manifestly unjust to make the order.
11 Jun 1982

LEUNG KIN HUNG v. CHENG MUI

Citation

LEUNG KIN HUNG v. CHENG MUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP730/1982

The District Judge erred in requiring absolute certainty of the intended marriage; the correct test under s.53(2)(b) is whether the claimant reasonably requires the premises based on the likelihood shown by the evidence and credibility of witnesses, and the fact of purchase over tenants' heads carries little weight under the post-1980 statutory regime; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for retrial.
30 Sept 1981

S.D.S. BOKHARY v. MICHAEL ERIC BREMNER

Citation

S.D.S. BOKHARY v. MICHAEL ERIC BREMNER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/1981

The trial judge erred by entertaining irrelevant suspicions and failing to give adequate weight to the appellant's legitimate reasons (size, location, age, health and need for assistance); on the evidence the appellant had a genuine present need and entitlement to possession under s.53(2)(b), and the tenant's hardships did not amount to manifest injustice. Appeal allowed and possession ordered.