Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung

Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung

The Tribunal affirmed that the written tenancy agreement created a term from 15 January 2000 to 14 January 2002 subject to a break clause that required any termination notice not to expire earlier than 12 months from commencement; no valid notice complying with that requirement had been served, the Form CR101 did not satisfy section 119(3)(b) and was therefore invalid, and the additional documents submitted on review were irrelevant or inadmissible; accordingly the tenancy had not ended and the application for a new tenancy was dismissed and the original orders were upheld.

Citation
Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung
Parties
Applicant (tenant): Lau Wing Chung; Respondent (landlord): Yip Chi Tung
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 April 2001
Case Number
LDNT462/2000
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant New Tenancy Application (review) / Review Decision
Outcome
Review dismissed; original judgment and orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
New Tenancy Application, Break Clause, Service of Notice, Effluxion of Time, Landlord & Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance S119(3)(b)
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Statutory Notice Contract Interpretation Procedure New Tenancy Application Break Clause Service of Notice Effluxion of Time +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lau Wing Chung

Applicant (tenant)

Yip Chi Tung

Respondent (landlord)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant New Tenancy Application (review) / Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy had expired by effluxion of time
  2. 2 Whether the Form CR101 served by the respondent constituted a valid notice under the tenancy break clause
  3. 3 Whether the Form CR101 complied with section 119(3)(b) of the Landlord & Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal affirmed that the written tenancy agreement created a term from 15 January 2000 to 14 January 2002 subject to a break clause that required any termination notice not to expire earlier than 12 months from commencement; no valid notice complying with that requirement had been served, the Form CR101 did not satisfy section 119(3)(b) and was therefore invalid, and the additional documents submitted on review were irrelevant or inadmissible; accordingly the tenancy had not ended and the application for a new tenancy was dismissed and the original orders were upheld.

Court Disposition

Review dismissed; original judgment and orders affirmed.

Orders

  • Application for new tenancy dismissed.
  • It is declared that the tenancy has not come to an end by effluxion of time and the Applicant may continue to reside in the premises subject to paying the current rent of $14,000 per month in advance (inclusive of rates and management fee) and complying with the terms of the tenancy.