租賃糾紛中沒收租賃權濟助的適用？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：NGAN CHUN FAI trading as TAI YUEN TRADING CO. v EASTERNTECH (HONG KONG) CO. LTD. 及 EASTERNTECH (HONG KONG) CO. LTD. v NGAN CHUN FAI trading as TAI YUEN TRADING CO. - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權法官、袁家寧法官、鄧國楨法官 - 判決日期：2005年4月22日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩宗區域法院民事訴訟的上訴。第一宗案件 (DCCJ 3912/2001) 中，東藝（香港）有限公司（業主）向顏松輝（租客）申索租金及代通知金。原審法官撤銷了東藝的申索，理由是顏先生已按土地審裁處的收回管有命令遷出物業。第二宗案件 (DCCJ 6997/2000) 中，顏先生向東藝申索損害賠償，但被原審法官撤銷。原審法官基於雙方各有不對，不作任何訟費命令。東藝就DCCJ 3912/2001的撤銷判決及DCCJ 6997/2000的訟費命令提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議點包括：原審法官是否錯誤地認定土地審裁處的收回管有命令導致租約終止，而未考慮「沒收租賃權的濟助」(relief against forfeiture) 自動生效。其次，原審法官是否未有處理顏先生提出的東藝違反「平靜享用土地契諾」(covenant for quiet enjoyment) 的抗辯，以及顏先生是否已放棄該權利。此外，還需審視是否有「退回租賃」(surrender of tenancy) 及「接納退回租賃」(acceptance of surrender) 的情況，以及租賃協議中租期的計算是否正確。最後，上訴法庭需決定原審法官在DCCJ 6997/2000案件中的訟費命令是否恰當。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審法官錯誤地認為土地審裁處的收回管有命令導致租約終止。根據《高等法院條例》(High Court Ordinance) 第21F條，當租客在指定時間內繳付欠租和訟費後，「沒收租賃權的濟助」會自動生效，使收回管有命令失效，租客仍有責任繼續繳付租金。原審法官未有處理多項關鍵事實爭議，包括業主是否違反「平靜享用土地契諾」、租客是否放棄權利、以及是否存在「退回租賃」及「接納退回租賃」的情況。這些爭議點均涉及事實裁斷，原審法官未作處理，導致判決不完整。因此，上訴法庭認為必須撤銷原審判決，並將案件發還區域法院由另一位法官重審。同時，由於DCCJ 3912/2001的判決被撤銷，原審法官基於該判決作出的訟費命令亦應撤銷。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭判決上訴得直，撤銷原審法官在DCCJ 3912/2001案件中的判決，並將該案發還區域法院由另一位法官重審。同時，撤銷原審法官在DCCJ 6997/2000案件中的訟費命令，並將該訟費事宜發還區域法院，由審理DCCJ 3912/2001爭論點的同一位法官處理。本上訴的訟費將根據DCCJ 3912/2001爭論點的審訊結果決定，由敗訴一方支付。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了「沒收租賃權的濟助」在租務糾紛中的重要性，即使有收回管有命令，若租客履行特定條件，租約仍可能有效。此外，判決重申原審法官必須對所有關鍵事實爭議作出裁斷，否則上訴法庭將撤銷原判並發還重審。這對確保審訊的完整性和公正性具有指導意義。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: NGAN CHUN FAI trading as TAI YUEN TRADING CO. v EASTERNTECH (HONG KONG) CO. LTD. and EASTERNTECH (HONG KONG) CO. LTD. v NGAN CHUN FAI trading as TAI YUEN TRADING CO. - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung JA, Hon Yuan JA, Hon Tang JA - Date of Judgment: 22 April 2005 ### Factual Background This case involves appeals from two District Court civil actions. In the first case (DCCJ 3912/2001), Easterntech (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. (landlord) claimed rent and wages in lieu of notice from Ngan Chun Fai (tenant). The trial judge dismissed Easterntech's claim, finding that Mr. Ngan had vacated the premises pursuant to a possession order from the Lands Tribunal. In the second case (DCCJ 6997/2000), Mr. Ngan claimed damages from Easterntech, which was also dismissed by the trial judge. The trial judge made no costs order in the second case, citing fault on both sides. Easterntech appealed against the dismissal of its claim in DCCJ 3912/2001 and the costs order in DCCJ 6997/2000. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this appeal were: whether the trial judge erred in finding that the Lands Tribunal's possession order terminated the tenancy without considering the automatic effect of "relief against forfeiture". Secondly, whether the trial judge failed to address Mr. Ngan's defence that Easterntech breached the "covenant for quiet enjoyment" and whether Mr. Ngan had waived this right. Additionally, the court had to consider if there was a "surrender of tenancy" and "acceptance of surrender", and the correct calculation of the lease term. Finally, the Court of Appeal had to determine if the trial judge's costs order in DCCJ 6997/2000 was appropriate. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in concluding that the Lands Tribunal's possession order terminated the tenancy. Pursuant to section 21F of the High Court Ordinance, "relief against forfeiture" automatically takes effect when the tenant pays outstanding rent and costs within the specified period, rendering the possession order ineffective. The tenant remains liable for rent. The trial judge failed to address several critical factual disputes, including whether the landlord breached the "covenant for quiet enjoyment", whether the tenant waived his rights, and whether there was a "surrender of tenancy" and "acceptance of surrender". These disputed facts, crucial for a complete determination, were not adjudicated by the trial judge. Consequently, the Court of Appeal found it necessary to set aside the original judgment and remit the case to the District Court for retrial before a different judge. As the judgment in DCCJ 3912/2001 was set aside, the costs order made by the trial judge based on that judgment should also be set aside. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial judge's judgment in DCCJ 3912/2001 and remitting the case to the District Court for retrial before a different judge. The costs order in DCCJ 6997/2000 was also set aside, and the matter of costs was remitted to the District Court to be handled by the same judge hearing the issues in DCCJ 3912/2001. The costs of this appeal will be determined by the outcome of the retrial of the issues in DCCJ 3912/2001, to be paid by the losing party. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the significance of "relief against forfeiture" in tenancy disputes, where a tenancy may remain valid despite a possession order if the tenant fulfills specific conditions. It also reiterates that trial judges must adjudicate all material factual disputes; failure to do so will lead to the appellate court setting aside the judgment and remitting the case for retrial. This provides important guidance for ensuring the completeness and fairness of trials. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.