ROGER KING v. LUKE HIM SAU

ROGER KING v. LUKE HIM SAU

Applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving cogent reasons to vary the prior tenancy by inserting a tenant-only break clause; the prior agreement did not grant the tenant an enforceable right to continue as a monthly tenant; accordingly the Tribunal refused the break clause and, on agreed and adjusted valuation evidence, fixed the prevailing market rent at $23,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates and ordered a new 2 year tenancy from 1 July 1983 on the same terms as the prior agreement.

Citation
ROGER KING v. LUKE HIM SAU
Parties
Applicant (tenant): Roger King; Respondent (landlord): Luke Him Sau
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 September 1983
Case Number
LDLA41/1983
Procedural Posture
Application Under Part IV Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 7 for a New Tenancy / Judgment (hearing Concluded)
Outcome
New tenancy granted to applicant for 2 years from 1 July 1983 at $23,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates; tenant break clause refused; no order as to costs; liberty to apply reserved.
Legal Topics
New Tenancy, Break Clause, Market Rent Determination, Duration of Tenancy, Onus to Vary Prior Terms, Statutory Continuance, Notice Period
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property / Real Property Valuation Contract New Tenancy Break Clause Market Rent Determination Duration of Tenancy +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger King

Applicant (tenant)

Luke Him Sau

Respondent (landlord)

Procedural Posture

Application Under Part IV Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 7 for a New Tenancy / Judgment (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the new tenancy should include a tenant break clause allowing termination after 12 months on 1 month’s notice
  2. 2 What is the prevailing market rent as at 1 July 1983
  3. 3 Who bears the onus of proof when seeking to introduce different terms into a new tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving cogent reasons to vary the prior tenancy by inserting a tenant-only break clause; the prior agreement did not grant the tenant an enforceable right to continue as a monthly tenant; accordingly the Tribunal refused the break clause and, on agreed and adjusted valuation evidence, fixed the prevailing market rent at $23,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates and ordered a new 2 year tenancy from 1 July 1983 on the same terms as the prior agreement.

Court Disposition

New tenancy granted to applicant for 2 years from 1 July 1983 at $23,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates; tenant break clause refused; no order as to costs; liberty to apply reserved.

Orders

  • Grant new tenancy for Flat B7 for 2 years from 1 July 1983 at $23,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates
  • New tenancy otherwise to contain the same terms and conditions as the prior tenancy agreement dated 9 June 1977