Sin Sheung Mo v. Elthaf Chaudhry Muhammad

HCMP 1921/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1921 OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM LDPD 1329/2015)

________________________

________________________

_____________

JUDGMENT
_____________

Hon Lam VP (giving the judgment of the court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of Mr Alex Ng, member of the Lands Tribunal made in LDPD 1329 of 2015 on 20 July 2015. By that decision, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the applicant on the ground of default in payment of rent. This was the second time where the Tribunal made such an order in respect of the same tenancy; the earlier order was made in LDPD 1115 of 2014. Relief against forfeiture was granted on that occasion. In the present instance, the Tribunal considered whether relief should be granted for a second time in light of s 21F(1A) of the High Court Ordinance. The Tribunal held that no good cause had been shown and refused to grant relief this time.

2.The respondent sought leave to appeal. Leave was refused by the Tribunal on 3August2015.

3.The respondent applied to this court for leave to appeal. He also sought a stay of execution.

4.The applicant opposed the application for leave.

5.Under section11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance, leave can only be granted on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal was wrong in law. Further, under section11AA(6), this court can only grant leave if we are satisfied that the intended appeal has reasonable prospect of success or there are other reasons for leave to be granted in the interest of justice.

6.We have read the documents lodged by the respondent in support of his application. We do not discern any errors of law on the part of the Tribunal in its decision of 20July2015. All the matters raised are questions of fact which the Tribunal resolved in favour of the applicant. Nor are we satisfied that the intended appeal has any reasonable prospect of success. There is no other reason for leave to be granted in the interest of justice. It also follows that we would not grant any stay of execution.

7.We therefore refuse to grant leave. We are also of the view that the application is totally without merit. Pursuant to Order59 Rule2A(8), we make an order that no party may request our refusal of leave to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.

8.In the letter of 18August2015, the respondent indicated that he would move out on or before 30August and he wished to have a stay of execution for a few days. He should make that application in the Tribunal. This court is only concerned with stay of execution pending appeal. Since we refuse to grant leave to appeal, we would not grant any stay of execution. However, this would not stop him from applying for stay before the Tribunal.

The applicant acting in person

The respondent acting in person