FUNG LING YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER

FUNG LING YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER

The Tribunal found the primary use of the premises was domestic: intermittent commercial activities were secondary to long‑standing residential occupation; inspections and the Commissioner’s certificate supported domestic classification; endorsements of permitted rent or rateable value reflect hypothetical market/business potential and are not determinative of actual user. Accordingly the premises fall within Part I and the Commissioner’s certificate is upheld.

Citation
FUNG LING YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Appellant: Fung Ling Yin; 1st Respondent: Commissioner of Rating & Valuation; 2nd Respondent: Chan Yuk
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 March 1985
Case Number
LDLA31/1984
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Commissioner’s determination upheld
Legal Topics
User Determination, Domestic Vs Business Premises, Interaction of Part I and Part II User Rules, Permitted Rent Endorsement, Rateable Value Assessment, Pre‑1979 Business Premises Exclusion
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Statutory Interpretation User Determination Domestic Vs Business Premises Interaction of Part I and Part II User Rules Permitted Rent Endorsement Rateable Value Assessment +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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Ling Yin

Appellant

Commissioner of Rating & Valuation

1st Respondent

Chan Yuk

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Appeal / Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the premises at 21 Yiu Wa Street are domestic or business premises within Part I of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether intermittent commercial activity displaces primary domestic use
  3. 3 Relevance of prior certificate and endorsed permitted rent/rateable valuation to user determination

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the primary use of the premises was domestic: intermittent commercial activities were secondary to long‑standing residential occupation; inspections and the Commissioner’s certificate supported domestic classification; endorsements of permitted rent or rateable value reflect hypothetical market/business potential and are not determinative of actual user. Accordingly the premises fall within Part I and the Commissioner’s certificate is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Commissioner’s determination upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Commissioner’s determination that the premises are within Part I of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance upheld