WONG JUAN v. MORGAN TITUS PIERRE RICHE

LDPD 2425/2017

[2018] HKLdT 20

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

APPLICATION NO LDPD 2425 OF 2017

________________

________________

__________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

__________________________

1.  This is the 2^nd interlocutory application filed by the respondent on 14 March 2018 for leave to appeal of the decision made by the tribunal on 13 March 2018 and stay of execution pending appeal. The 1^st interlocutory application filed by the respondent for stay of execution of the Writ of Possession and time to move out by 15 April 2018 was decided by the tribunal at the hearing on 13 March 2018, and the reasons for decision was handed down on 21 March 2018, before the hearing of the 2^nd interlocutory application on the same date.

2.  I do not repeat the background of the case here, which has been stated in the reasons for decision[1] dated 21 March 2018. 

3.  At the conclusion of the hearing on 21 March 2018, I ordered that (1) the interlocutory application filed by the respondent on 14 March 2018 be dismissed; and (2) there be no order as to costs of this interlocutory application, with reasons to be handed down in writing.  I now do so.

Grounds for the Interlocutory Application

4.  In the affirmation filed by the respondent, he said that the tribunal had refused to read a Family Court document submitted by him, which contains personal information of his family and ex-girlfriend, and had also told him that all the documents even with sensitive information had to be disclosed to the applicant.  He also said that since he refused to let the tribunal disclose the said personal information to the applicant, the tribunal then decided to dismiss his application for stay of execution.  The respondent believed that his rights in the case had not been respected.

5.  At the hearing of the interlocutory application on 21 March 2018, the respondent repeated to present his grounds for stay of execution, which had in fact been discussed and considered by the tribunal at the hearing on 13 March 2018.   He further said that he had just obtained from the Family Court a summary of his case without the said personal information, which could then be submitted to the tribunal for consideration.  He worried that if no stay of execution was granted, he would have nowhere to live that would affect his daughter too, and the applicant might throw his personal belongings away after recovery of possession. He believed that he might be able to get the money for payment shortly and the applicant would finally be able to recover all the arrears of rent / mesne profits.

6.  The applicant opposed the interlocutory application for leave to appeal and disagreed with any stay of execution.

Discussions

7.  According to section 11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance (“the Ordinance”), any party to proceedings before the tribunal may appeal to the Court of Appeal against a judgment, order or decision of the tribunal on the ground that such judgment, order or decision is erroneous in point of law.

8.  Section 11AA(6) of the Ordinance stipulates that leave to appeal shall not be granted unless the tribunal, the Court of Appeal or the registrar hearing the application for leave is satisfied that (a) the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success; or (b) there is some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard.

9.  Firstly, in considering the subject interlocutory application, since the tribunal shall not exercise its power of review in respect of a decision if this decision has already been the subject of appeal or otherwise unless such proceedings have been abandoned, I shall not review the respondent’s grounds for stay of execution, except those in relation to pending appeal. 

10.  At the hearing on 13 March 2018, the respondent had been given chances to hide the personal and sensitive information of the Family Court document before the intended submission, but the respondent refused to follow the direction.  The respondent had not asked for adjournment and insisted to submit the document intact for perusal by the tribunal only.  Whilst, beyond doubt, the tribunal had never told him that all the documents even with sensitive information had to be disclosed to the applicant.

11.  I consider that what had been described by the respondent in this regard is certainly untrue. 

Conclusion

12.  This tribunal did not accept the respondent’s grounds for the interlocutory application.  The proposed appeal has neither a reasonable prospect of success nor any reasons in the interests of justice, and I therefore dismissed it at the hearing.

13.  Further, since the application for leave to appeal is dismissed, the application for stay of execution pending appeal should also be dismissed.

Costs

14.  The applicant did not ask for costs and there be no order as to costs of this interlocutory application.