JUDGMENT

[1] The leave question for our determination was as follows:

"In relation to a claim for double rent under s 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956, whether there is a requirement on the landlord to show wilful and contumacious conduct on the part of the tenant holding over to render the tenant liable to pay the said double rent."

[2] The question may be paraphrased: If the tenant holds over after the expiry of the tenancy, is there a need for the landlord to prove wilful and contumacious conduct on the part of the tenant to entitle the landlord to charge double rent under s 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956?

[3] The Court of Appeal had agreed with the High Court that it is a requirement under s 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956 ("the Civil Law Act") that there must be wilful or contumacious holding over on the part of the tenant to entitle the landlord to claim double rental. Having so decided on the question of law, it found no reason to interfere with the High Court's finding of fact that there was no evidence to prove contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents.