Tang Fung Yiu Dora and Another v. Chong Pui Hang

LDPE523/2014

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

APPLICATION NO. LDPE 523 OF 2014

________________

BETWEEN

________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

1.This is a trial to determine a preliminary issue of whether the respondent is the tenant to a tenancy agreement on which the applicants as landlord are now suing. If the question is answered in the negative it is a total defence, and the application should be dismissed.

Brief background

2.The two applicants are the registered owners of Room 1709 of Park Lane Square, Tuen Mun, NT (“the premises”). It is not in dispute that by a tenancy agreement in Chinese originally dated 4^th May 2010 but later re-dated 1^st June 2010, the 1^st applicant as landlord rented the premises to one Dance in Motion Limited (“DIM”) at a monthly rent of HK$13,800 (“1^st tenancy agreement”). The respondent then signed as DIM’s representative and as witness. She was then a director and shareholder of DIM which carried on the business of teaching/promoting dancing and performing arts.  

3.Apparently, it was stated in the 1^st tenancy agreement that the term was for 2 years commencing 1^st June 2010 and ending 31^st May 2012. However, there is dispute as to the term of the tenancy. The applicants said that it was for a term of 2 years only while the respondent suggested a term of 10 years. The reasons for the dispute was perhaps because of the following handwritten remarks inserted at the end of the 1^st tenancy agreement:

“備註: 租期每两年續约壹次，每次租金加幅不超過百分之十，至二零二零年五月三十一日止。

(Translation) Remarks: The tenancy term shall be renewed once every two years, with each increase not exceeding [the previous rent] by 10% until 31^st May 2020.”    

4.Suffice to say that for the present purpose, when the 1^st tenancy agreement was stamped by the respondent on behalf of DIM, it was stamped on 29^th July 2010, which was 59 days from the amended date but 86 days from the original date, for a 2-year term. An ad valorem stamp duty of HK$828 for the said 2-year term was paid on top of HK$1,656 being penalty for late stamping.

5.In or about March 2012 the 1^st applicant initiated discussions with the respondent on renewal of the tenancy. She said the discussion between them took place via telephone conversation and Whatsapp, an instant messaging software commonly used by smart-phone users in Hong Kong. In the end, the tenancy of the premises was renewed at a monthly rental of HK$15,100, which was about 10% increase over the old rent, and for a term of 2 years from 1^st June 2012 to 31^st May 2014. The tenancy agreement was dated 1^st June 2012 (“2^nd tenancy agreement”). It was the applicants’ case that:

i) Instead of DIM, the respondent had become the tenant; and

ii) All the terms set out in the remarks of the 1^st tenancy agreement had gone and would not form part of the 2^nd tenancy agreement.       

6.Both the 1^st and 2^nd tenancy agreements are in Chinese. It is worthwhile to note the following hand-written description of the tenant at the commencement and execution clause of the stamped 2^nd tenancy agreement:

i)   Commencement:

“租客: 莊沛珩

DANCE IN MOTION

(Translation)

Tenant: Chong Pui Hang

DANCE IN MOTION”

ii) Execution Clause:

“租客: Dance In Motion Ltd (signed) (illegible) 身份證號碼: K061xxx (9)

莊沛珩

見證人: [blank]

(Translation)

Tenant: Dance In Motion Ltd (signed) (illegible) Hong Kong Identity Card No.:K061xxx (9)

Chong Pui Hang

Witness: [blank]”

7.This time, it was the 1^st applicant who stamped the 2^nd tenancy agreement. It is noted that on the stamp certificate of the 2^nd tenancy agreement, the 1^st applicant and the respondent were described as landlord and tenant respectively.

8.It is this 2^nd tenancy agreement that is the subject matter of the present dispute. The dispute as to the tenant’s identity under the 2^nd tenancy agreement did not appear to surface until this 2^nd tenancy agreement was due to be renewed. The respondent said she had never been given a copy of the stamped 2^nd tenancy agreement but the 1^st applicant said a copy had been posted to the respondent after stamping. The 1^st applicant said the tenant should be the respondent in his personal capacity but the respondent said it should be DIM.

9.On 14^th March 2014 the 1^st applicant sent a Whatsapp message to the respondent enquiring if the tenancy would be renewed for the 3^rd time. In the ensuing exchanges, the following 3 issues became apparent:

(i) Who was the tenant to the 2^nd tenancy agreement?

(ii) Whether the tenant was entitled to cap the rental increase to 10% over the previous term; and

(iii) Whether the tenant was entitled to a term of 10 years until 2020. 

10.The respondent’s response as evidenced from her Whatsapp messages was why the increase was not capped at 10% as originally agreed. Although she had counter-offered an increase of 30%, when no agreement was reached she insisted on 10% increase and for a term of 10 years from 2010. It was not until 26 May 2014 that the respondent made it clear the tenancy was entered into between the 1^st applicant and DIM, not herself personally.

11.The applicants issued the present proceedings in this tribunal on 4 June 2014 on the ground the respondent refused to move out after expiry of the 2-year term ending 31 May 2014.  On 5 June 2014, the respondent filed a Notice of Opposition. It is fair to say the only substantive ground of opposition revealed therein was that there had been agreement on the term being 10 years instead of 2. A copy 1^st tenancy agreement was annexed to substantiate her claim.    

12.At the 1^st call-over on 23 June 2014, the respondent was represented by Counsel Ms Candy Fong. She told the tribunal that the primary defence of the respondent was that a wrong party was being sued. Ms Fong also raised issues about the term of tenancy and rate of rent increase.

13.The parties were directed to file evidence. At trial it was indicated by the respondent that she was no longer a director of DIM[1]. Ms Fong stated that she was in no position to say whether DIM would be willing to be bound by the findings of facts of this tribunal on the term and rates disputed by the respondent if DIM was found by this tribunal as tenant. This tribunal therefore tries to limit its findings to the identity issue, and not extending to other issues as far as possible.

The Evidence

14.Only the 1^st applicant and the respondent gave evidence at trial. The respondent had through her lawyers submitted a bundle of Whatsapp conversations exchanged between them. Since they were contemporaneous correspondence, they shed light on what had actually taken place shortly before the 2^nd tenancy agreement was made. Contents of the Whatsapp messages are not in dispute though the parties differed on the circumstances under which the Whatsapp messages were sent.

15.The gist of the 1^st applicant’s evidence was this. She sent a Whatsapp message to the respondent on 6 March 2012 enquiring whether the 1^st tenancy would be renewed, and if so, at HK$15,100. On 22 April 2012, she sent the partly filled up 2^nd tenancy agreement to the respondent. She said between these 2 dates she had telephones conversations with the respondent which led to an agreement, inter alia, that the respondent entered into the tenancy in her own personal capacity; and that the handwritten terms concerning the rate of increase and the total terms be excluded and no longer be binding on them.

16.According to the 1^st applicant’s evidence at trial, their discussion centred on whether old terms would be included in the 2^nd tenancy agreement and who would sign as tenant. She said they discussed if the remarks concerning term and rental increase were to be incorporated, she would definitely not be reducing the rental in future even if they met a bad year like the SARS’ time. However, if the old terms were not included, the parties would be more flexible on rent which was no longer subject to any restriction. Rent could readily be reduced to reflect a declining market in case of poor economy. There were both advantages and disadvantages of including the old terms. She said the result of the various conversations was that the new tenancy would be without the old terms. Further, the respondent agreed to personally take up the tenancy to reflect the change and to avoid argument as to whether old terms would still be effective.  

17.The 1^st and the 2^nd agreement were based on the same pre-printed ready-made tenancy agreement she bought from stationery stores. She said initially, she filled up the agreement on the basis DIM would be the tenant. Accordingly the name DIM was inserted at the commencement and execution clause of the agreement. As the discussion with the respondent went along and agreement aforesaid reached subsequently, she did not discard the filled up document. Instead, she particularly asked the respondent for her HKID number over the phone. After inserting such number beneath the description “Hong Kong Identity Card Number” at the signatory space intended for tenant she sent the filled up document to the respondent for signature. She said the respondent’s HKID number was specifically inserted to signify it was the respondent who would be the tenant as agreed.

18.The 1^st applicant exhibited the stamped 2^nd tenancy agreement as A-2 and the Stamp Certificate A-3. She said the partly filled up 2^nd tenancy agreement sent to the respondent for signature on 22 April 2012 was exactly the same as A-2 with all insertions and deletions as they appeared now, save and except the followings:

i) There was no signature and initials of the respondent;

ii) The Chinese name of the respondent had not yet been inserted at the beginning and bottom of the agreement; and

iii) The month and the day of the agreement had not been inserted.

19.When asked why the descriptions of DIM in the agreement were not crossed out when sending over the 2^nd agreement on 22 April 2012, she explained it was her oversight and admitted she was careless this time. She said she was not a person who cared about details. In any event she expected the respondent to cross out the description DIM and put in her particulars as tenant.  The respondent, however, did not. On the other hand, if DIM was the tenant, she would expect the respondent to cross out her HKID number as it would be irrelevant.  Neither did she do so. She said she thought what had been accepted by the Collector of Stamp as tenant was most important.

20.She forgot when exactly she received the signed 2^nd tenancy agreement back. According to the Whatsapp message, she accepted she might have got it by end of May 2012 as the respondent said on 20 May 2012 she had sent it back. She added that on 24 June 2012 she sent the following Whatsapp message to the respondent:

“請給我你的中英文名ID NO及通訊地址以便打厘印

(Translation) Please let me have your Chinese and English name, ID NO and correspondence address for stamping the stamp duty.”

21.She said she had already made it clear to the respondent the requested personal particulars were used for stamping. The respondent therefore should be sure she would be a party to the 2^nd tenancy agreement. She was of the view that if the respondent had doubts or objection over the purpose for which the personal information was asked for, she should have raised queries. She never did, and provided the information as requested. It showed, she submitted, that the respondent knew perfectly well that she would be taking up the tenancy personally.

22.She added that in the 1^st tenancy agreement, the respondent signed in Chinese while in the 2^nd tenancy agreement she signed in English. It can be seen, submitted by the 1^st applicant, the respondent had adopted different signing patterns for her different capacities - Chinese for DIM and English personal capacity. She admitted, however, it was a mere guess as she had never been told by the respondent of such distinction, though she said it would be a reasonable guess.

23.The 1^st applicant said the respondent’s Chinese name was added by her[2] to the signed 2^nd tenancy agreement after she had obtained the respondent’s personal particulars via Whatsapp. It was pointed out to her that the respondent’s Chinese name and her HKID number were in fact already on the 1^st tenancy agreement made in 2010. She therefore needed not ask for them again in 2012. The 1^st applicant explained that since the name was subscribed by the respondent to the 1^st tenancy agreement as her signature which was a sign, she was not 100% sure of the 1^st respondent’s exact Chinese name. She therefore did not write it on the 2^nd tenancy agreement before sending it over on 22 April 2012. She preferred a written confirmation from the respondent before writing it down for stamping.

24.The respondent’s evidence at trial can be summarized as follows:

i) She did not meet the 1^st applicant when the 2^nd tenancy agreement was delivered to the suit premises on 22 April 2012. She initially firmly denied the 1^st applicant’s allegation that her Hong Kong ID number was written on the 2^nd tenancy agreement when she got it[3]. She later expressed that she was not quite sure whether her HKID number was there because she did not pay attention to it[4];

ii) She denied having any discussion with the 1^st applicant between 6 March and 22 April 2012 before the unsigned 2^nd tenancy agreement was sent to her. She considered it would be better to have those terms repeated but the 1^st applicant refused via Whatsapp. She therefore asked her friend called Mike, who was an estate agent, to contact the 1^st applicant on whether those old terms should be added back. The 1^st applicant refused to talk to him as she did not consider Mike representing her. She recalled when it was almost time to sign she called using her own mobile phone the 1^st applicant on this matter. She was told since it was a renewal, it would not be a problem if the old terms were not written on the new agreement. The practice before the renewal would continue. She would be given a renewal in due course. She therefore signed and returned the agreement. The telephone discussion lasted for 10 minutes. She said it was likely that this telephone call took place on or about 20 May 2012 shortly before she returned the signed agreement;

iii) She admitted she then understood the 1^st applicant was trying to avoid the old terms. She did not believe the 1^st applicant would observe what she had told her but she really did not know what to do and what to say. She therefore signed, with a view to leaving whatever that might pop up to be resolved later. 

iv) She denied having any discussion with the 1^st applicant that she was to take up the tenancy personally prior to the signing of the 2^nd tenancy agreement. She said it would be quite impossible as DIM had incurred over $300,000 when taking up the premises in 2010. Neither was there any discussion after signing of the agreement that she was to become the tenant;

v) During cross-examination, she said when she was asked to provide her personal particulars for stamping purpose, she did not pick up the message that she in fact was or had became the tenant.

vi) In §6 of her witness statement of 23 July 2014, she said she had made a copy of the signed 2^nd tenancy agreement before it was returned to the 1^st applicant. She exhibited a document purporting to be the said photocopy at NC-2 of her statement. At trial, she admitted she had made a mistake and messed up this with some other document. She said she made the copy using camera of one of her smart phones but the photo had been deleted accidentally in the phone, though she believed the softcopy should have been downloaded and stored somewhere. It was because she had made copy and sent it over to her friend for advice. However, she was unable to retrieve it despite efforts. She confirmed the document at NC-2, which was the same as exhibit R-1, was in fact one of the documents sent to her by the 1^st applicant via Whatsapp on 18 March and 30 April 2014. The 1^st applicant initially disagreed on the 1^st day of trial but later accepted this was the case on the 2^nd day. The 1^st applicant explained that she took pictures of the 2^nd tenancy agreement at different stages and sent this (i.e. R-1 or NC-2) to the respondent on 18 March and 30 April 2014 by mistake, thinking she was then sending over the duly completed and stamped 2^nd tenancy agreement.

vii) It is noted from R-1 (i.e. NC-2) that:

a) The respondent had already signed on the 2^nd tenancy agreement and initialled next to certain additions/deletions which were exactly the same as shown in the stamped 2^nd tenancy agreement;

b) The date and month of the agreement had been left blank, but “2012” had already been inserted as the year;

c) the HKID number of the respondent was already written there; but

d) the respondent’s personal name at the commencement and execution clause of the agreement had not been inserted, and

viii) She sent a copy of DIM’s business registration certificate to the 1^st applicant on 22 June 2012 voluntarily without being asked, thinking that the 1^st applicant might require this for stamping of the 2^nd tenancy agreement.

ix) The rental receipts for the 2^nd term were issued in the name of “1709租客 (translation: tenant of unit 1709)”. This was not in dispute.  She could not recall to whom the receipts for the 1^st term were addressed.

x) With a view to avoiding quarrel with the 1^st applicant, she counter-proposed an increase of 30% when the 1^st applicant proposed a monthly rent of $25,000 in March 2014 for the 3^rd term.

25.The respondent also said when the unsigned 2^nd tenancy agreement was sent to her, it was stipulated in clause 2 that if she wanted to renew or end the tenancy upon expiry of the term, she has to give one month written advance notice. She said it was later amended by the 1^st applicant by deleting the word “壹 (meaning “one”)” and adding the word “叁 (meaning “three”)” before stamping.

Discussion

26.When the term under the 1^st tenancy agreement was due to expire by end of May 2012, unless there was an agreement that someone else was to take up the tenancy, it should be DIM who should be entitled to a renewed term. In fact when the 1^st applicant initiated the discussion in the Whatsapp, she used the words “續約 (translation: renewal of tenancy)”. The crucial question therefore is whether the parties had come to a binding agreement that the respondent was to take up the 2^nd tenancy agreement personally before 22 April 2012 as alleged by the 1^st applicant. There is serious factual dispute in this respect. The determination of the dispute hinges to a large extent on the credibility of the parties. The tribunal will be doing the assessment by analysing the parties’ evidence and weighing it against undisputed or less controversial facts, contemporaneous documents such as the Whatsapps messages.

27.The 1^st applicant was observed to be a person with rather strong and assertive character. She spoke eloquently and confidently in a manner which ordinary people may find it difficult to interject. She was observed by this tribunal to readily argue what appeared to her to be logical despite that it might not necessarily be so. She appears to the tribunal to be subjective but careful and meticulous. She was experienced in life and knew what she wanted.

28.On the other hand, the respondent was young and appears to the tribunal to be inexperienced in life. She was observed to be timid, unsophisticated and not orally expressive. It also appears to the tribunal that she is not the sort of person that would pay or would be able to pay attention to details. In view of her apparent lack of good re-collection, her evidence would be carefully checked with contemporaneous documents and her prior statement before this tribunal comes to its findings.

29.One obvious example is this. The respondent’s evidence as set out in §25 above suggested that it was the 1^st applicant who unilaterally amended the document without her prior consent after she had already signed on it. However, in §6 of her statement, she said she had read the document sent to her and disagreed to, inter alia, the “three” months notice proposed by the 1^st applicant. Obviously, it showed the amendment was already there when she got it! Her evidence in this respect was inconsistent with her prior statement, and this tribunal does not find her said evidence reliable.

30.In any event, taking into consideration of the overall evidence, this tribunal does not find her dishonest. Further, her observed behaviour tallies with her evidence that when faced with a strong character landlady such as the 1^st applicant, she might not be able to handle her and would be readily to accede to request.

31.The 1^st applicant said that between 6 March and 22 April 2012 she had reached agreement with the respondent that she was to personally take up the tenancy. Further, according to her, this agreement was consequent upon a prior agreement that the 10% rent increase ceiling and the 10-year term stated in the 1^st tenancy agreement would not be repeated in the 2^nd tenancy agreement[5]. However, on a balance the alleged agreement as to identity appears inconsistent with the undisputed contemporaneous evidence of this case:

i) As revealed in the Whatsapp messages, the respondent’s initial response after receipt of the unsigned 2^nd tenancy agreement was that the new agreement differed substantially from the old one. She proposed the new agreement to follow the old terms Images highlighting the difference were sent over[6]. From the images referred to, the proposed old terms even included deletion of a notice requirement on the part of the 1^st applicant[7] which if deleted, would apparently operate against the respondent’s interest. Apparently it did not appear that between them, any discussion had ever taken place at all, not to mention the agreement as alleged. In any event, the respondent’s request to write back the 10-year term and ceiling for rent increase suggested at least in respect of these two areas there had been no agreement. The Whatsapp exchanges were inconsistent with there being any prior agreement as alleged.

ii) The 1^st applicant’s explanation for not deleting the description of DIM before sending the unsigned document over was that she was careless and forgetful. However, it was noted that the 1^st applicant was careful enough to insert something which, according to her, served to signify the respondent’s personal liability under the new agreement. In the circumstances, this tribunal finds it difficult to accept her failure to delete a mere accidental omission or careless as alleged. The 1^st applicant’s explanation does not fit in the tribunal’s observation that she was in fact careful and meticulous. If she cared to insert identification particulars in the tenancy agreement to signify a personal agreement, why not the respondent’s name as well, bearing in mind that according to her, she had to take, and in fact had taken the trouble to ask the respondent for her HKID number.

iii) It does not appear logical that neither party had ever made reference to the alleged agreement reached before 22 April 2012 in their Whatsapp exchanges when the respondent raised queries on why old terms were excluded. Had there been an agreement as alleged, one would expect the 1^st applicant would have referred the respondent to their agreement when apparently this agreement was challenged. Instead of asserting the agreement, the 1^st applicant argued that the old terms had expired and she being the landlord had the rights to dictate the terms[8]. Neither agreement nor anything indicative of its existence was mentioned by her in the circumstances. The 1^st applicant’s reaction was inconsistent with an agreement having been reached.

iv) The 1^st applicant was asked by the tribunal as to who requested the switch from DIM to the respondent taking up the tenancy. Surprisingly, the 1^st applicant’s reply was that she could not recall[9]. It was her evidence that she did not want the old terms on rent increase and term of 10 years to be in the 2^nd tenancy agreement[10] and therefore talked to the respondent before sending over the unsigned agreement. Obviously she considered such change important. She even saw fit to ask for the respondent’s HKID number and put it there before sending over the document. It would appear unreasonable that she failed to recall who initiate this important discussion. This tribunal cannot help coming to the conclusion she was not honest in this respect.

32.On a balance, the respondent’s case on identity of tenant is more consistent with the contemporaneous Whatsapp exchanges of the parties:

i) The discussion set out in the preceding paragraph demonstrated that the Whatsapp messages were inconsistent with the 1^st applicant’s case but were more consistent with the respondent’s;

ii) On 1 June 2012, the 1^st applicant made it clear that she would only stamp the 2^nd tenancy agreement after she had received all outstanding rents. According to documentary evidence[11], the 1^st applicant first asked for the respondent’s personal particulars on 22 June and later the purpose for which they were asked for on 24 June 2012. She stamped the agreement on 26 June 2012. At trial, she confirmed she went to stamp the agreement after all outstanding payments had been settled. It can therefore be inferred that all outstanding money might have reached the 1^st applicant on or about 22 June 2012, (a Friday), or at the latest 24 June 2012, (a Sunday with 23 June being the Tuen Ng Festival, a public holiday). On the other hand, without any prior request[12] the respondent voluntarily sent over DIM’s business registration certificate (“BRC”) to the 1^st applicant on 22 June 2012. Her explanation at trial was that it was for stamping purpose. Her explanation fit in the contemporaneous documents because both parties recognized, after all overdue had settled, it was the right time to stamp the tenancy agreement. The 1^st applicant’s explanation that she considered it natural and reasonable for the respondent to send her a copy BRC for record purpose at that specific time is difficult to understand, given the tenant had already been changed from DIM to the respondent personally, and such need has gone.

iii)   This tribunal also accepts the respondent’s explanation that she really did not pick up the 1^st applicant’s message when she was asked of her personal particulars for stamping, given the respondent’s character as found by this tribunal above. In any event, without establishing a prior agreement that the respondent was to become the tenant personally, the 1^st applicant’s argument that provision of personal particulars amounting to good evidence of an existing agreement unacceptable.   

33.It is the 1^st applicant’s case that the respondent backed out from their prior agreement because they failed to agree on the rent for the third term. Had the rent been agreed, she said, the respondent would not have raised issue over the tenant’s identity. The respondent denied. She explained that she did not want to quarrel if the increased rent was affordable and could be agreed.

34.From the Whatsapp message it was true that she had ever counter-offered[13] a rent increase of 30%, contrary to her primary position of there being a 10% cap. However, it is noted that on 14 March 2014 when the 1^st applicant first offered $25,000 per month for the 3^rd term, the respondent’s instantaneous response was why such increase exceeded 10% as previously agreed[14].  Her gut reaction apparently was based on the 1^st tenancy agreement still prevailing. This tribunal therefore did not consider the respondent’s responses inconsistent with a finding that there was no prior agreement alleged by the 1^st applicant. The respondent’s explanation is, in the tribunal’s view, acceptable and not inconsistent with the Whatsapp exchanges.

35.On a balance, this tribunal did not believe that the HKID number of the respondent was written on the unsigned agreement before it was sent over to the respondent on 22 April 2012. However, even if this tribunal were wrong and it were there prior to its sending over, given my finding of no agreement aforesaid, the unilateral insertion of the respondent’s HKID number does not add anything to the applicants’ case. In any event there was no space for a BRC number in the 2^nd tenancy agreement even if the tenant was a limited company. Arguably, inserting a HKID number in the space provided can help identify the person signing on behalf of a limited company tenant.  

36.By reasons of the above, this tribunal does not accept the 1^st applicant’s evidence that there has been agreement prior to 22 April 2012 for the respondent to take up the 2^nd tenancy personally. Further, this tribunal also finds that subsequent to 22 April 2012, there was no agreement to the same effect either. This tribunal believes, as testified by the respondent, that since the 1^st applicant insisted not to include the old terms to the agreement, the respondent did not know how to deal with the situation. With a view to continue operate the business there, the respondent had no alternative but to sign for DIM on the 2^nd tenancy agreement and return, hoping any problem that might pop up could be resolved later. It was only after the return of the 2^nd tenancy agreement that the 1^st applicant inserted the respondent’s name as tenant before stamping it. In the tribunal’s judgment, it will not make the respondent the tenant to the tenancy agreement. It is DIM who was tenant under the 2^nd tenancy agreement.

Conclusion and Orders   

37.Since on a balance the respondent can established that when the 2^nd tenancy agreement was made, it was DIM, not the respondent who signed as the tenant, it is a total defence to the applicants’ application. The application is hereby dismissed.

38.This tribunal would like to make it clear that the decision herein does not mean that this tribunal has come to a finding that the 2^nd tenancy agreement carries with it the terms set out in the remarks of the 1^st tenancy agreement. It remains a live issue between the applicants and DIM, though to a substantial extent the witnesses will be bound by what they have said in the present proceedings.

39.As regards costs, this tribunal fails to see why costs should not follow the event. Accordingly, this tribunal makes a costs nisi that the applicants do pay the respondent’s costs of the application on District Court scale, such costs be made absolute if no application is made to vary the costs nisi within 14 days from today. Upon making of the costs order absolute the respondent is at liberty to apply to this tribunal for the costs to be assessed by summary assessment. 

The 1^st applicant appeared in person and also being the representative of the 2^nd applicant

Ms Candy Fong, instructed by Wong & Co, for the respondent