Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Chan Wai v Shim Tet Thong Co Ltd

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date22 January 1946
Year1946
Judgement NumberDCMP3/1945
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCMP000003/1945 CHAN WAI v. SHIM TET THONG CO LTD

DCMP000003/1945

BRITISH MILITARY ADMINISTRATION

GENERAL MILITARY COURT

TENANCY TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.3 of 1945

(Application No.14 of 1945)

-----------------

Between
Chan Wai Appellant
(Opponent)

AND
Shim Tet Thong Co. Ltd. Respondents
(Applicants)

Coram: Leo D'Almada, President

Date of Judgment: 22 January 1946

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. On nearly every question of fact before the Tribunal there was direct conflict of evidence in this case. On every such question the Tribunal found for the Applicants, and, from the Findings, it is clear that it did so because it believed the evidence adduced on their behalf and disbelieved that of the Opponent.
2. To quote from the Findings :
"........ it seemed to the Tribunal that the Opponent was trying all along to provide an answer for every point raised by the Applicants whether that point was material or not. When it came to deciding whom to believe, or more specifically, whom not to believe, the Tribunal, without much hesitation, decided against the Opponent."
3. In the circumstances it cannot be said that this Court is in as good a position as that of first instance, and, both on the authorities and on a careful examination of the evidence, I am satisfied that these findings should not be disturbed.
4. Mr. Kan argues that the Tribunal based its decision on four points, and that they were wrong on every one. These points are (a) the failure to pay rent from 11.10.41. to 16.1.42., (b) the findings of fact that the partnership had been dissolved in 1942 and the machinery moved out of the premises by the firm, (c) the finding of fact that the Opponent was the occupier of the premises personally and not as representative of the firm, paying no rent, (d) the sub-letting of part of the premises.
5. I agree with him that points (a) and (d) would not in this case be ground for an order for eviction.
6. I agree also that there was not sufficient evidence for a finding that the partnership had been dissolved, this being a question of mixed law and fact, wherefore if point (c), the finding of personal instead of representative occupation were based on such finding of dissolution, there would be an end of the case and the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT