Leung Ping t/a Sun Win Wah Iron Foundry v. Lee Chung Industrial Co Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 47 OF 1970

(On appeal from V.C.J. 1517/1970)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Huggins, J.:

1. For my part I would have thought that the words “so far as the defendant’s tenancy or lease is concerned” were inconsistent with a conclusion that the learned judge made no finding of a tenancy, although in view of other passages in his judgment one would have expected an express finding one way or the other. Since counsel on both sides think that there is a doubt, which is shared by the other members of the court, I agree that the judge should be asked to certify whether or not he did find a tenancy to exist and, if so, what were its terms.

2. I cannot help thinking that the learned judge confused himself by his reference to “the defendant’s tenancy or lease”.  The Defendant had said that his tenancy was “on a yearly basis” and there was no evidence of a lease for a term exceeding three years.  That being so, the Land Registration Ordinance could have no relevance (see s.3(2)) and, in so far as the learned judge based his decision wholly upon that Ordinance, it cannot stand.  Accordingly I agree that there should be an order in the terms proposed by Blair-Kerr, J.