DR. OWENS TRODD & PARTNERS O/B PACIFIC PRIMARY HEALTHCARE LTD. v. CHARLIE C.K. LEE

DR. OWENS TRODD & PARTNERS O/B PACIFIC PRIMARY HEALTHCARE LTD. v. CHARLIE C.K. LEE

The Tribunal preferred and relied on the consistent evidence of the Respondent's expert (Mr Poon) despite his not inspecting internally because the Applicant's expert (Mr Cullen) was discredited by blatant discrepancies and inconsistencies; using four adjusted comparables and a downward adjustment for defects, the Tribunal assessed the prevailing market rent at $35,600 per month exclusive of rates and management fees and granted the new 2-year tenancy from 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2002.

Citation
DR. OWENS TRODD & PARTNERS O/B PACIFIC PRIMARY HEALTHCARE LTD. v. CHARLIE C.K. LEE
Parties
Applicant (tenant): DR. OWENS TRODD & PARTNERS O/B PACIFIC PRIMARY HEALTHCARE LTD.; Respondent (landlord): CHARLIE C.K. LEE
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 April 2002
Case Number
LDNT309/2000
Procedural Posture
New Tenancy Application (lands Tribunal) / Judgment
Outcome
New tenancy granted to Applicant; prevailing market rent fixed at $35,600 per month exclusive of rates and management fees; other ancillary orders made.
Legal Topics
New Tenancy, Market Rent Assessment, Expert Valuation Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Rental Deposit Adjustment
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Valuation New Tenancy Market Rent Assessment Expert Valuation Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Rental Deposit Adjustment

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DR. OWENS TRODD & PARTNERS O/B PACIFIC PRIMARY HEALTHCARE LTD.

Applicant (tenant)

CHARLIE C.K. LEE

Respondent (landlord)

Procedural Posture

New Tenancy Application (lands Tribunal) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties had reached a binding agreement on the new rent
  2. 2 What is the prevailing market rent for the premises
  3. 3 Which expert evidence to prefer when experts conflict and one did not inspect internally

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal preferred and relied on the consistent evidence of the Respondent's expert (Mr Poon) despite his not inspecting internally because the Applicant's expert (Mr Cullen) was discredited by blatant discrepancies and inconsistencies; using four adjusted comparables and a downward adjustment for defects, the Tribunal assessed the prevailing market rent at $35,600 per month exclusive of rates and management fees and granted the new 2-year tenancy from 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2002.

Court Disposition

New tenancy granted to Applicant; prevailing market rent fixed at $35,600 per month exclusive of rates and management fees; other ancillary orders made.

Orders

  • New tenancy granted to the Applicant for a term of 2 years from 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2002
  • The new rent is $35,600 per month exclusive of rates and management fees