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

Esther Ramona Wright v Emily Low

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date23 October 1947
Year1947
Judgement NumberDCMP22/1947
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
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 recovery on the grounds that the premises were required for use as a family residence. The address of the opponent was given as c/6 Chinese Maritime Customs, this address being used as the opponent had told solicitor for respondent that he was rarely to be found at the premises which are subject-matter of the dispute.

5. Difficulty was found in serving the application on the opponent but finally he was served. He was shortly to be transferred to Amoy. In consequence, he called on solicitor for respondent and told him that he did not oppose the application. At the request of the solicitor, he wrote a letter to the solicitor dated 25th August, 1947, as follows:

6. 'With reference to the application served on me in reference to the above premises, I beg to inform you that I am not opposing the application. I would also inform you that I am not living in the premises anymore, and I have not sub-let any part of the premises or assign or transferred my tenency in any way.'

7. Efforts were made to have the case heard before his departure for Amoy. It was known to the respondent at this time that opponent's wife (appellant) would be unwilling to give up possession. The case was heard by the Tribunal on the 9th September by which time opponent had apparently left for Amoy. The appellant now claims she was unaware that the proceedings for recovery of possession were being taken before the Tribunal. At the hearing, opponent did not appear. The letter of August 25th written by opponent was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and after hearing the respondent the Tribunal, considering from the contents of the letter that the opponent was the sole tenant, gave order for the eviction of 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