Leung Hau v Chan Chun Leung

CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date26 Jul 1983
Judgement NumberCACV54/1983
SubjectCivil Appeal
CACV000054/1983 LEUNG HAU v. CHAN CHUN LEUNG

CACV000054/1983

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Civil Appeal

No. 54 of 1983

BETWEEN

LEUNG Hau

Plaintiff

and

CHAN Chun-leung

Defendant

________

Coram: Hon. Leonard, V.-P., Cons & Fuad, JJ.A.

Date: 26th July, 1983.

___________

JUDGMENT

__________

Cons, J.A. :

1. This is an appeal from the Lands Tribunal which refused an application for possession brought under Sec. 53(2)(b) of the Landlord & Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance Cap. 7. The writ alleged that the premises were required for the plaintiff's daughter, being then over the age of 18 years.

2. Before we deal with the merits of the appeal we have to refer to the record of the trial which was placed before us. Clearly the transcript had not been checked or revised in any way before delivery to the plaintiff's solicitors. We appreciate of course that however much care is taken transcripts will inevitably be found to contain the odd typing error . We do not complain of that. What has disturbed us here are words and phrases in the judgment which simply do not make sense. Again we appreciate that a busy judge may not have the time to check the papers himself, but if that is the case, we suggest that the person doing the checking should bring to his notice those portions which are incomprehensible. Applications for possession may only be small fry in the entire judicial pond, but to the parties themselves they are of supreme importance, concerning as they must, the very homes in which the parties live. We feel that when they come to this court they are entitled to at least an accurate record of the reasons for the judge's decision.

3. In the present instance that decision came early on in the proceedings. At the end of the mother's case the Presiding Officer indicated that, subject to argument, he was not satisfied that "reasonable requirement" had been made out. The ground for this was immediately apparent in the brief oral decision that he gave after hearing the submission of the solicitor who was then appearing. It commenced with these words: -

"

There is no doubt that neither (the mother) nor (the daughter) was prepared to be honest in answering questions in chief or those asked by the Respondent. I am left with the impression that the reason for requiring the suit premises is not so that (the daughter)
...

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