Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Acceptance of rent

  • 15 Nov 2012

    NGAI NGOK PANG 及另一人 對 LEE SYN YUK, MICHELLE

    Citation
    NGAI NGOK PANG 及另一人 對 LEE SYN YUK, MICHELLE<br>
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD2002/2012

    The tribunal applied the objective test for notices and found the landlord's 5 June 2012 notice valid and effective to terminate the lease on 5 July 2012; the tenant's 1 July 2012 notice and the landlord's 1 July attempted variation were ineffective because the earlier valid notice could not be withdrawn; however the landlord's subsequent conduct in applying to the tribunal for possession and accepting rent evidenced an intention to create a new tenancy, so the landlord could not recover possession on the basis of the earlier notice; the cheque-handling fee claim falls outside the tribunal's…

  • 25 Jan 1999

    LAI LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHAU WING

    Citation
    LAI LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHAU WING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2119/1998

    The tenancy became a monthly tenancy from 1 January 1994; the notice to quit served on 15 May 1997 complied with s122(3) Cap.7 and validly terminated the tenancy on 30 November 1997; subsequent acceptance/retention of the Defendant's payments did not evidence an intention by the Plaintiffs to create a new tenancy, so no tenancy by conduct arose; accordingly judgment for the Plaintiffs for possession, mesne profits, rates and costs was entered.

  • 9 Apr 1986

    GLENEALY MANSION LIMITED v. NORMAN PERSAUD

    Citation
    GLENEALY MANSION LIMITED v. NORMAN PERSAUD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA5758/1985

    The court found on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant occupied without landlord authority and that the landlord (through its manager) did not know the original tenant had vacated nor that the Defendant was claiming to be tenant; contemporaneous documents (rent memoranda and receipts in the original tenant's name) and credible oral evidence (Catherine Wong) rebutted Defendant's account. Knowledge could not be imputed from third parties, and doctrines of waiver/acquiescence/laches/quasi-estoppel were not established. Result: Defendant is a trespasser; possession awarded and mesne p…

  • 25 Apr 1985

    NEW EASTERN INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. CHI HING (a firm)

    Citation
    NEW EASTERN INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. CHI HING (a firm)
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLA853/1984

    The court held that the respondent's counsel's refusal to consent to an order in the separate old-tenancy proceeding did not amount to repudiation of the new tenancy agreement; the purported condition precedent was not proved; the agreement took effect in equity as a lease after continued possession; therefore the applicant's application was dismissed.

  • 4 Nov 1982

    HONGKONG BANK TRUSTEE LTD v. CHAN CHI WAH AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HONGKONG BANK TRUSTEE LTD v. CHAN CHI WAH AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV107/1982

    Clause 2(g)(i) (prohibiting permitting or suffering any person not listed in the schedule to use or reside) imposes a continuing obligation such that each day an unscheduled person resides is a fresh breach; acceptance of rent after knowledge of such a breach constitutes waiver only for the specific period the landlord knew the breach would continue; because the landlord did not know the breach would continue beyond May 1981, the mistaken acceptance of May rent did not waive the continuing breach and the landlord was entitled to possession subject to relief from forfeiture on terms.

  • 5 Sept 1981

    TIM T.Y. WANGLEE v. CHOI MEI PO AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TIM T.Y. WANGLEE v. CHOI MEI PO AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6995/1980

    Judge found that the landlord's agents (in particular Lo and Lau) had acquired knowledge of the subletting by early October and that the landlord accepted subsequent rent payments (including rents paid by Tai Pan) which as a matter of law operated to waive the right to forfeit for subletting; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for possession was dismissed and judgment entered for the 1st defendant.

  • 5 Jul 1977

    LAI MAI YU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

    Citation
    LAI MAI YU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2474/1976

    Clause 4(h) permitted the Crown to give three months' notice terminating the tenancy on any date; the notice to quit served was valid and effective, the plaintiff did not obtain a new tenancy by payment of rent after valid notice because there was no mutual agreement to create a new tenancy, and the Crown Land Ordinance s.6 notices were valid; consequently the plaintiff's claims fail and the defendant's counterclaim succeeds except as to the bank bond and limited findings on licence period.

  • 26 Nov 1976

    CHOW SAU-PO v. MADAM CHAN SAU-MIN

    Citation
    CHOW SAU-PO v. MADAM CHAN SAU-MIN
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1005/1975

    Judge found plaintiff proved prima facie subletting under s.53(3) and defendant failed to rebut; plaintiff acquired full knowledge in May, thereafter accepted rent only after giving an unambiguous qualification and issued proceedings within a reasonable period, so his acceptance did not amount to waiver; accordingly judgment for plaintiff for possession and costs.

  • 8 Jan 1970

    LAM CHOI CHIU AND ANOTHER v. KWOK TUNG SANG

    Citation
    LAM CHOI CHIU AND ANOTHER v. KWOK TUNG SANG
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ42/1970

    Acceptance of rent after the expiry of a notice to quit does not per se create a new tenancy; a new tenancy will be inferred only where evidence shows the parties intended to create it. Further, where a tenant has served a counter notice under s7(6) of the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance 1970 the tenancy does not terminate on expiry of the notice until a possession order is made.