Chen Kui Chao Jean And Another v Yim Chung Ning

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCCJ2511/1980
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ002511/1980 CHEN KUI CHAO JEAN AND ANOTHER v. YIM CHUNG NING

DCCJ002511/1980

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 2511 OF 1980

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

BETWEEN CHEN KUI CHAO JEAN and LAW LAN Plaintiff
AND YIM CHUNG NING Defendant

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

Coram: H.H. Judge Cruden

Date of Judgment: 25th July, 1980.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. In these proceedings the plaintiff, as landlord, claims possession of certain domestic premises being Flat Q, 11th floor, Hong Kong Mansion, No. 1 Yee Wo Street, Hong Kong. The defendant was in possession of the suit premises pursuant to a tenancy agreement entered into between the parties for a term of 3 years from the 10th day of November, 1976. The plaintiff claims possession on the ground that on the 9th day of November 1979 the tenancy expired by effluxion of time and that the defendant has failed to deliver up vacant possession. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is now in wrongful occupation of the suit premises as a trespasser.

2. The defendant, who appeared in person, filed a defence which alleges that she paid construction money at the commencement of the tenancy and spent $10,000 in repairs to make the premises habitable. She also pleads facts relating to her husband's income and the size of their family which would pose difficulties if they had to move out.

3. I now have before me a summons filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Rule 9 of the District Court Civil Procedure (General) Rules asking that the defence "be struck out on the ground that it is frivolous and vexatious or may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court and that judgment be entered in this action for the plaintiff and costs of this action."

4. On the hearing of this summons the preliminary point arose whether the premises were subject to Part II of the Landlord & Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 7. In the plaintiff's statement of claim it is pleaded that Part II does not apply. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the tenancy agreement was for a period of 3 years from the 10th day of November 1976 and that the plaintiff's cause of action therefore arose on the 9th day of November 1979. As at that date by virtue of Section 50(6)(j)(i) tenancies for 3 or more years were not subject to Part II. The recent amendment to the Ordinance was enacted on 15th February 1980 but made retrospective to the 18th day of December 1979. It now makes such 3 years tenancies subject to Part II. However, in the plaintiff's submission the amendment does not apply to this tenancy and the proper law to be considered is that which existed prior to the 18th of December 1979.

5. The defendant submitted that the suit premises were subject to the amendment and that Part II of the Ordinance did...

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