J & F GARMENTS FACTORY LTD v. 虛境世界有限公司

J & F GARMENTS FACTORY LTD v. 虛境世界有限公司

The Tribunal found the primary use of the premises was not industrial, the non‑industrial use identified was nevertheless capable of remedy, and the applicant had not served a valid section 58 notice specifying the breach and requiring remedy; therefore no cause of action for forfeiture had accrued and the application for recovery of possession was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] HKLdT 36
Parties
Lessor/landlord: Applicant (owner of Workshop 6C, Hong Kong Industrial Centre); Lessee/tenant: Respondent (tenant)
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 May 2019
Case Number
LDPE393/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Recovery of Possession/forfeiture (lands Tribunal) / Hearing on 9 May 2019; Judgment Dated 23 May 2019
Outcome
Application dismissed; no cause of action for forfeiture accrued
Legal Topics
User Covenant, Non‑industrial Use, Section 58 Notice to Remedy, Remediability of Breach, Definition of 'industrial' Use
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Lease Forfeiture Conveyancing User Covenant Non‑industrial Use Section 58 Notice to Remedy Remediability of Breach +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant (owner of Workshop 6C, Hong Kong Industrial Centre)

Lessor/landlord

Respondent (tenant)

Lessee/tenant

Procedural Posture

Application for Recovery of Possession/forfeiture (lands Tribunal) / Hearing on 9 May 2019; Judgment Dated 23 May 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent used the premises for non‑industrial purposes in breach of the user covenant
  2. 2 Whether such breach was capable of remedy for the purposes of section 58 CPO
  3. 3 Whether the applicant served a valid section 58 notice before seeking forfeiture

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the primary use of the premises was not industrial, the non‑industrial use identified was nevertheless capable of remedy, and the applicant had not served a valid section 58 notice specifying the breach and requiring remedy; therefore no cause of action for forfeiture had accrued and the application for recovery of possession was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no cause of action for forfeiture accrued

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs: order nisi that there be no order as to costs; to be made absolute upon expiry of 14 days unless varied by summons