AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HOCK KIM THYE (MACHINERY) LTD

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HOCK KIM THYE (MACHINERY) LTD

Respondent's opposition was dismissed because the landlord's correspondence amounted to reminders rather than statutory warning letters required by s.119E(1)(d), and the non-statutory grounds (repairs complaints and alleged unreasonable rent) did not justify refusal. The Tribunal found defects in the applicant's valuation methodology (use of older comparables, insufficient comparables, inappropriate time adjustments) and revised the valuation. On the evidence the Tribunal granted a new two-year tenancy from 1 March 2004 and fixed rent at HK$105,000 per month, with a deposit of HK$210,000; parties to bear their own costs.

Citation
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HOCK KIM THYE (MACHINERY) LTD
Parties
Tenant: American International Assurance Co. Ltd.; Landlord: Hock Kim Thye (Machinery) Limited
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 August 2004
Case Number
LDNT26/2004
Procedural Posture
New Tenancy Application (lands Tribunal) / Final Judgment
Outcome
New tenancy for a fixed term of two years granted commencing 1 March 2004 at a monthly rent of HK$105,000 exclusive of rates and management fees; new deposit HK$210,000; parties to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
New Tenancy, S.119 a Notice, S.119 E(1)(d) Warning Letter, Valuation Methodology, Rent Assessment, Unauthorised Structures, Deposit, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Valuation Tenancy Disputes Statutory Procedure New Tenancy S.119 a Notice S.119 E(1)(d) Warning Letter Valuation Methodology +4 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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

American International Assurance Co. Ltd.

Tenant

Hock Kim Thye (Machinery) Limited

Landlord

Procedural Posture

New Tenancy Application (lands Tribunal) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord validly opposed the grant of a new tenancy under s.119E(1)
  2. 2 Whether letters sent by landlord constituted statutory warning letters under s.119E(1)(d)
  3. 3 Whether applicant habitually paid rent late such as to justify refusal of new tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent's opposition was dismissed because the landlord's correspondence amounted to reminders rather than statutory warning letters required by s.119E(1)(d), and the non-statutory grounds (repairs complaints and alleged unreasonable rent) did not justify refusal. The Tribunal found defects in the applicant's valuation methodology (use of older comparables, insufficient comparables, inappropriate time adjustments) and revised the valuation. On the evidence the Tribunal granted a new two-year tenancy from 1 March 2004 and fixed rent at HK$105,000 per month, with a deposit of HK$210,000; parties to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

New tenancy for a fixed term of two years granted commencing 1 March 2004 at a monthly rent of HK$105,000 exclusive of rates and management fees; new deposit HK$210,000; parties to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • A new tenancy for a fixed term of two years is granted commencing on 1 March 2004 at a monthly rent of HK$105,000 exclusive of rates and management fees.
  • A new deposit in the sum of HK$210,000 is to be paid within one month from the date of judgment, less any amount already held by the Respondent.