Liew Pai Win v Foo Shing Trading Co

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date31 Dec 1946
Judgement NumberDCMP36/1946
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings
DCMP000036/1946 LIEW PAI WIN v. FOO SHING TRADING CO

DCMP000036/1946

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

SUMMARY JURISDICTION

TENANCY APPEAL No. 36 of 1946.

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

BETWEEN
Liew Pai Win otherwise Liu Pui Man Appellant
(Opponent)

AND

Foo Shing Trading Co.
Kennedy K.Y. Cheng
Respondent
(Applicant)

Coram: Mr Justice T.J. Gould

Date of Judgment: 31 December 1946

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal from the decision of a Tenancy Tribunal ordering the appellant to deliver up possession of three rooms (Nos. 112, 113 & 114) in Marina House, Hong Kong to the respondent. The grounds set forth in the notice of motion are that (a) the decision was against the weight of evidence and (b) that it was wrong in law.

2. As to the first of these two grounds I need only say that this is a case where there was a direct conflict of evidence, which was given at some length, and that the Tribunal was in a better position than this Court to assess the value of the evidence on each side. So far from it having been shown that this is a case where the Tribunal clearly fell into error, I am of the opinion that their findings of fact, as I gather them from the judgment, were correct on the evidence before them.

3. The only two points of law which were seriously relied upon by the solicitor for the appellant are as follows:-

(1) That the Tribunal erred in accepting evidence as to the identity of the tenant which was not the best evidence; and
(2) That the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to give a judgment which was in effect declaratory as to the persons who were proprietors or partners of the Foo Shing Trading Co., tenants of the premises in dispute.

4. The facts as to the first of these are that the respondents at the hearing relied on certain letters written by the landlord of the premises and by the appellant himself as establishing that the respondents were in fact the tenants and upon the evidence of one Choy San Nam as establishing that appellant rented the premises as agent of the respondent. It was contended that the respondent should have called the landlord himself to establish as part of his case that he was the tenant - that the landlord's evidence was the "best" evidence within the meaning of the well known rule. With this contention I cannot agree. The issue between the parties was not whether the premises were let to the Foo Shing Trading Co., - there is a written agreement to that...

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