IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVI l appeal no. 265 of 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM DCMP NO. 688 OF 2013)
J U D G M E N T
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is the defendant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the Judgment of this court given on4 March 2016. Pursuant to directions, the application was dealt with on paper. The defendant filed submissions on 17 May 2016, theplaintiff filed submissions in opposition on 15 June 2016 and the defendant filed submissions in reply on 27 June 2016.
2. Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that the requirement of s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap. 484 has not been satisfied. In our judgment, we applied a well-established principle (see paras.22.1 – 22.4) to the facts ofthe present case, in particular we considered whether the reference to the tenancies was a contractual provision which was inconsistentwith the principle that vacant possession would be implied as a matter of law (paras.23.1 – 23.4). We do not see any question ofgreat general or public importance involved, nor do we see any ground for giving leave under the “or otherwise” limb.
3. Accordingly we would dismiss the application with costs. The plaintiff should file with the court and serve on the defendant abill for the purpose for a summary assessment of costs within 14 days of the date of this Judgment. The defendant should provideher comments thereon (if any) within 14 days thereafter. The court will then assess the costs summarily and hand down our decisionin due course.
Ms Elaine Liu, instructed by Tam, Pun & Yipp, for the plaintiff
Mr Tony Ko, instructed by Kent Tam & Co, for the defendant