Eugene Choi v Mee Wah To

In the case of Eugene Choi v Mee Wah To, the dispute revolves around a lease of retail premises where the Respondent, Mee Wah To, is the lessor and the Applicant, Eugene Choi, is the lessee. The lease, dated 28 September 2009, is registered and the demised premises are defined by a plan attached to the lease, marked in black. The Respondent contends that the plan does not accurately reflect the area agreed upon for the lease, alleging a common mistake, and seeks declaratory orders to enable changes to the lease. Conversely, the Applicant seeks declaratory orders confirming her title and possession of the premises.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was an operative mistake in the lease, whether there was evidence of fraud or any action or omission by the Applicant leading to any mistake, and whether the Respondent's claim that she signed the lease without reading and never intended to demise the described premises was substantiated. The court needed to determine if the Respondent's negligence or that of her agents in instructing solicitors could lead to a finding of mistake, and if the evidence was clear and convincing enough to warrant disturbing the Land Titles Register.

The court held that there was no operative mistake in the lease. Furthermore, it was found that there was no evidence of fraud or any action or omission by the Applicant that led to any mistake. The court considered the Respondent's claim that she signed the lease without reading it and never meant to demise the premises described in the plan. However, the evidence provided was not deemed clear and convincing enough to disturb the Land Titles Register. The court found that the lease accurately described the premises, and the Respondent's claim was not substantiated. Consequently, the court issued several declarations confirming the Applicant's title and possession of the demised area, and ordered the Respondent to compensate the Applicant for her failure to allow quiet possession.

The final orders included declarations confirming the Applicant's title to the demised area, invalidating a Notice to Remedy Breach of Covenant issued by the Respondent, and ordering the Respondent to compensate the Applicant for the failure to allow quiet possession. The Respondent was also ordered to repay certain sums to the Applicant, along with interest. The court mandated the Respondent to deliver up possession of the demised area to the Applicant and to refrain from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the premises.