施姍姍 (SZE SAN SAN) v 薈娛國際有限公司 (IBEAUTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED)

Why this matter warrants attention

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission described section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance as concerning lease validity and exclusivity, but the tribunal found that it concerns the power to exclude premises from the Ordinance's application. Outcome: Application refused. The respondent, represented by Wei Shu-hua without legal representation, submitted a complaint containing numerous incorrect statutory references and descriptions. The tribunal stated that the document appeared to be an artificial-intelligence work, although Wei said it had been drafted by a lawyer friend. The tribunal found that the cited provisions did not support the propositions asserted: section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance concerned exclusion of premises, section 12 had been repealed in 1993, section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance concerned establishment rather than jurisdiction, and that Ordinance had no section 21. It also found that Lands Tribunal Rules 12 and 25 concerned amendment of documents and adjournments respectively, not the matters asserted; and that the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance was Cap. 219, not Cap. 48, with section 3 concerning written land contracts. The tribunal concluded that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and refused leave.