WEALAGE INVESTMENTS LTD v. RG PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

WEALAGE INVESTMENTS LTD v. RG PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

The Tribunal found on the evidence that the actual works did not amount to alterations or additions under Clause 2 and that the Respondent retained legal and factual possession so as not to have sublet or parted with possession under Clause 3; the landlord did not knowingly consent to third‑party client usage but Remark D and the Confirmation Letter did not authorise a transfer of possession; accordingly there was no breach entitling termination or repossession and the application for possession is dismissed.

Citation
[2026] HKLdT 13
Parties
Applicant (landlord): Wealage Investments Limited; Respondent (tenant): RG Property Management Limited
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2026
Case Number
LDPD68/2025
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession / Judgment After Trial
Legal Topics
Subletting, Exclusive Possession, Alterations and Additions, Termination and Forfeiture, Section 58 CPO, Contract Interpretation, User Covenants, Witness Credibility, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Contract Law Conveyancing Subletting Exclusive Possession Alterations and Additions Termination and Forfeiture +5 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wealage Investments Limited

Applicant (landlord)

RG Property Management Limited

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent made alterations or additions to the Premises in breach of Clause 2
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent assigned, transferred, sublet or parted with possession of the Premises or any part thereof in breach of Clause 3
  3. 3 Whether the landlord (Madam Wong) knew of and consented to third‑party staff accommodation before signing the Provisional Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found on the evidence that the actual works did not amount to alterations or additions under Clause 2 and that the Respondent retained legal and factual possession so as not to have sublet or parted with possession under Clause 3; the landlord did not knowingly consent to third‑party client usage but Remark D and the Confirmation Letter did not authorise a transfer of possession; accordingly there was no breach entitling termination or repossession and the application for possession is dismissed.