Esther Ramona Wright v Emily Low

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCMP22/1947
Judgment Date:23 Oct 1947
DCMP000022/1947 ESTHER RAMONA WRIGHT v. EMILY LOW

DCMP000022/1947

SUMMARY JURISDICTION

TENANCY TRIBUNAL APPEAL

ACTION No. 22 of 1947

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

BETWEEN
Esther Ramona Wright Appellant

AND

Emily Low Respondent

Coram: Mr. Justice E.H. Williams, Puisne Judge.

Date of Judgment: 23 October 1947

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

Reasons for Judgment

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

1. At the hearing of this appeal, I dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Tribunal for reasons which I then briefly stated. I now set out in greater detail the reasons for my decision.

2. The appeal was on two grounds:

1. That the Appellant is an occupier of the premises in respect of which the Tribunal made the order in the above Application on the 9th day of September, 1947, and is a person affected thereby. She was neither served with a copy of the Application nor could she be heard at the hearing thereof and in the alternative:

2. That the Appellant is a tenant of the said premises within the meaning of the Landlord & Tenant Ordinance, 1947, and is a person affected by the said order. She was neither served with a copy of the said Application nor could she be heard at the hearing thereof.

3. Solicitors for the appellant agreed that the word 'affected' should more properly read 'aggrieved'. By section 26(1) of the Ordinance, a right of appeal (with one exception which is irrelevant nere) is given to any person aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal.

4. The facts as agreed were that the opponent, who is husband of the appellant, became tenant of the premises in December, 1945. Some time later, the opponent and other members of the family arrived from India and joined him in residence at the premises. Two days after their arrival, the opponent, who is employed in the Chinese Maritimes Customs, left the premises for Sham Chun where he was stationed. He continued to pay the rent and maintain his family but there were marital differences. He was recently transferred to Amoy. Appellant and other members of the family continued in occupation of the premises. At the relevant time, the respondent who was the owner of the premises and her husband were absent in New Zealand and, desiring to return here where he had employment, she gave instructions to her solicitor to get possession of the premises for their occupation. A notice to quit was sent to the opponent in December requesting him to vacate the premises at the end of January. The letter containing the notice was brought by a member of appellant's family to the solicitor of opponent. The appellant became aware of the contents but did not give any instructions to the solicitor. However, letters passed between solicitor for respondent and this solicitor in consequence of which respondent made application to a Tenancy Tribunal under the Proclamation on 5th March asking for an order for...

To continue reading

Request your trial