Wu Wah Ming and Another v. Villanueva, Kristine Torres

HCMP 2989/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2989 OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM LDPD NO. 1792 OF 2015)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T
________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 9 September 2015, a member of the Lands Tribunal ordered the Respondent to deliver vacant possession of the premises known as Flat A, 16^th Floor, Wing Lee Building at No 18-24 Kwai Heung Street to the Applicants. He made the order on the ground that the Respondent failed to pay rent when it fell due since 12 July 2015. He also ordered the Respondent to pay the arrears of rent and mesne profit at the rate of $9,000 per month until the delivery of vacant possession.

2.The Respondent sought leave to appeal.  That application was also refused by the member on 23 October 2015.

3.By a summons of 10 November 2015, the Respondent renews the application for leave to appeal in this court.

4.Section 11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance sets out the permissible scope of an appeal from the decision or judgment of the Lands Tribunal.  In short, there can only be appeals on point of law. 

5.Further, Section 11AA of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal is required and it should only be granted if the court is satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or that there is some other reason in the interest of justice that the appeal should be heard.

6.The summons itself did not give any particulars on the intended grounds of appeal other than asserting that there was error of law in the decision.  In the affirmation of the Respondent of 10 November 2015, the following were set out:

“ (1) Law was not well applied;

(2) Insufficient evidence;

(3) Right of defence was breached;

(4) Error in case management;

(5) I was out of time for leave to appeal because I was severely hypotensive and was adviced by the doctor to have one week bed rest.”

7.None of these are properly framed questions of law.  We have read the written Decision of the member of 23 October 2015 and the file of the Lands Tribunal.  We cannot discern any errors of law on the part of the member in coming to his findings and conclusions.   

8.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal.

9.We are of the view that the application is totally without merit and we make an order pursuant to Order 59 Rule 2A(8) that no party may request the determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.

The 1^st and 2^nd applicants acting in person.

The respondent acting in person.