Tseng Stephanus Tsoen Kie and Another v. Lee Chan Chiu

DCCJ 1177/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1177 OF 2005

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

BETWEEN

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

Coram : Deputy Judge W. Lam in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 1^st December 2005

Date of Delivery of Decision : 1^st December 2005

_______________

Decision

_______________

1.The Plaintiffs (“P”) are landlords and the Defendant (“D”) was their tenant of shop premises in Hunghom from 20th April 2004 for a period of 2 years, at a monthly rental of $14,500 payable in advance on the 20th day of each month, in default of which D was liable to have the tenancy determined and to arrears of rent until vacant possession was surrendered.

2.It appears that D has never disputed his liability: see his letter dated 17th March 2005, where he only asked P for more time and patience.  He again acknowledged liability when he appeared before Master Wong on 11th July 2005.  On that day the learned Master made the following orders: (1) D to pay to P a sum of $14,500 for each month of possession commencing 20th March 2005, (2) D to deliver up vacant possession, and (3) costs in the sum of $7,180 to P.

3.D today appeals against the above orders and seeks leave to file a Defence.  One needs not be reminded that his Defence, even if arguable, is now hopelessly out of time with no palpable or reasonable excuse for the grant of extension of time.  In any event, for today’s appeal he has not filed any grounds attached to his Notice of Appeal.  But worse for him is that he is absent today.  I am told that today’s hearing was originally listed for 3rd October 2005, but that was adjourned so D could seek Legal Aid, but I am also told by Counsel for P today that D has been refused legal aid.  In the circumstances it is not difficult to see why.

4.In any event, I have examined the papers but have not been able to see that the learned Master has made any error of law or of finding of fact on the occasion when the Orders were made.  Furthermore D has not disclosed anywhere any credible or any arguable defence, but on the contrary he has only admitted liability.  With D defaulting today the only proper step for me to take is to dismiss his appeal. To adjourn the matter again is plainly a waste of public money and a waste of time.

5.For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed, and the learned Master’s orders are confirmed, to take effect immediately.

6.Costs awarded to P for the appearance on 3rd October 2005 and for today, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.

Miss A. WONG instructed by Messrs. K. M. Chan & Co. for Plaintiff.

Defendant, in person, absent.