| 单词 | Relief against forfeiture |
| 释义 | 對沒收租賃權的寬免 Relief granted by a court of equity against the forfeiture of property or a proprietary interest. Unless in exceptional cases, a court of equity will not relieve against forfeiture where there have been a wilful breaches: Shiloh Spinners v Harding [1973] AC 691. See also Forfeiture. Contract - The relief available in equity’s inherent jurisdiction to a promisor against the forfeiture of property which would occur on exercise of a right of termination and forfeiture: for example, Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana, The Scaptrade [1983] 2 AC 694, 2 All ER 763 (HL). The courts have, however, refused to extend the jurisdiction to ordinary commercial contracts unconnected with interests in land, and have left it very doubtful whether, outside the sphere of landlord and tenant, the jurisdiction could be exercised in a case where the forfeited interest depends on contract only and where relief would involve specifically performing the contract: Sport Internationaal Bussum BV v Inter-Footwear Ltd [1984] 2 All ER 321, 1 WLR 776 (HL). Thus there is no jurisdiction to grant relief in relation to a time charter (Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana, The Scaptrade, supra), or in relation to a contract granting licences to use certain names and trade marks (Crittall Windows Ltd v Stormseal (UPVC) Window Systems Ltd [1991] RPC 265). A court of equity may grant relief to the promisor against the forfeiture under the heads of fraud, accident, surprise, mistake or otherwise in appropriate and limited cases: Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding [1973] AC 691. See also Equitable fraud; Equity; Option contract. Real property - Relief granted by equity where a lease has been forfeited for breach of covenant: Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap 219) s 58. One of the commonest instances concerns leases which contain re-entry clauses: Seto Sylvia v Kowloon Shopping Centre Ltd [1980] HKC 725, HKLR 717. Where the breach is failure to pay rent, the proviso for re-entry on non-payment of rent is regarded in equity as merely a security for the rent, and provided that the landlord and other persons interested can be put in the same position as before (Chandless-Chandless v Nicholson [1942] 2 KB 321, 2 All ER 315 (CA)), the tenant is entitled to be relieved against the forfeiture on payment of the outstanding rent and any expenses to which the landlord has been put (Gill v Lewis [1956] 2 QB 1, 1 All ER 844 (CA)). However, the right to relief is subject to time limitation by statute. When the action for forfeiture for non-payment of rent is brought in the Court of First Instance or the Lands Tribunal, if the tenant pays into court within the time prescribed for acknowledging service of the writ, ie 14 days after service of the writ (The Rules of High Court (Cap 4A) O 12 r 5(a)), all rent in arrears, and costs of the action, the action will cease and the tenant holds the land under the lease without any new lease: Olivesburg Ltd v Volstead Travel Service Co Ltd [1994] 2 HKC 507; High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) s 21F(2). As to forfeiture for breaches of covenant other than non-payment of rent, the tenant may apply for relief before or after the landlord has actually re-entered: Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494, 1 All ER 141 (HL). Nevertheless, a court cannot grant relief if the landlord has obtained a judgment for possession against the tenant and has entered into possession pursuant to that judgment: Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd, supra. See also Breach of covenant; Forfeiture; Landlord; Re-entry; Rent; Tenant. 由衡平法法院針對財物沒收或所有人權益授予的寬免。除在特殊案件外，如有故意違反，衡平法法院不會針對沒收而給予寬免：Shiloh Spinners v Harding [1973] AC 691。另見 Forfeiture。 合約 - 在衡平法的固有司法管轄權，可針對於行使終止權及沒收權時發生的財物沒收而對許諾人提供濟助：例如 Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana, The Scaptrade [1983] 2 AC 694, 2 All ER 763（上議院）。但法院已拒絕把有關的司法管轄權的適用範圍擴及一般與土地權益沒有關連的商業合約；而在業主和租客以外的範圍，是否可在沒收權益只視乎合約及會牽涉特別履行合約濟助的案件行使司法管轄權，表示非常有疑問：Sport Internationaal Bussum BV v Inter-Footwear Ltd [1984] 2 All ER 321, 1 WLR 776（上議院）。因此就有關按時間計費的飛機租賃合約而言 （Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana, The Scaptrade, 見上文），或就有關授予使用若干名稱及商標的牌照的合約而言(Crittall Windows Ltd v Stormseal (UPVC) Window Systems Ltd [1991] RPC 265)，均沒有司法管轄權給予濟助。衡平法法院可針對欺詐行為沒收，意外事故沒收，難以逆料沒收，錯誤沒收或其他適當及有限的案件，給予許諾人濟助：Shilah Spinners Ltd v Harding [1973] AC 691。另見 Equitable fraud; Equity; Option contract。 土地財產 - 由衡平法在違反契諾而沒收租約的情況所給予的寬免：《物業轉易及財產條例》（第219章）第58條。其人一種最普遍的例子關於包含重收權條款的租約：Seto Sylvia v Kowloon Shopping Centre Ltd [1980] HKC 725, HKLR 717。如有欠交租金的違反，可在衡平法視因欠交租金而給予重收權的但書僅為租金的保證，及可使業主和其他有權益的人置於之前相同的位置(Chandless-Chandless v Nicholson [1942] 2 KB 321, 2 All ER 315（英國上訴法院）)，租客有權針對有關的沒收在已支付未清繳租金及任何業主曾放置的費用的情況下，得到寬免(Gill v Lewis [1956] 2 QB 1, 1 All ER 844（英國上訴法院）。但寬免權受制於法例的時間限制。當在原訟法庭或土地審裁處提出因欠交租金而給予重收權的訴訟，如租客在認收送達的時限內，（即為提述令狀送達後14天（高等法院規則（第 4A章）第12號命令第5(a)規則）），向法院繳付所有欠租及訴訟的訟費，則訴訟須予終止，承租人並即無須訂立任何新租契而按照有關租契持有土地：Olivesburg Ltd v Volstead Travel Service Co Ltd [1994] 2 HKC 507；《高等法院條例》（第4章）第21F(2)規則。就有關於欠交租金以外的違反契諾沒收，租客可在業主已實際上重收之前或之後申請寬免：Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494, 1 All ER 141（上議院）。儘管如此，如業主已獲得針對租客持有的判決及按照該判決取得管有，法院不可給予寬免：Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd，見上文。另見 Breach of covenant; Forfeiture; Landlord; Re-entry; Rent; Tenant。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。