Hong Kong Case Law

8 Oct 1999

KAMSHAN HOLDINGS LTD. v. CHAN TUNG MAN

Citation

KAMSHAN HOLDINGS LTD. v. CHAN TUNG MAN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV141/1999

The Court allowed the appeal in part, holding the plaintiff was entitled only to $2,500 under clause 4 for removal of debris; the plaintiff had no cause of action in tort for waste because any such cause accrued before assignment and was not validly assigned under ss.16(1)/17 CPO; clause 7 could not be relied on as pleaded and would not expand liability; other claimed sums (including loss of rent, surveyor fee and larger removal costs) were not recoverable.

• Waste
• Vacant possession
• Assignment of causes of action
• Construction of lease clauses
• Implied covenant (tenant-like manner)
• Measure of damages

31 Jan 1984

PACIFIC REALTY LTD v. LAM SAU MUI

Citation

PACIFIC REALTY LTD v. LAM SAU MUI

Court

Lands Tribunal

Case number

LDLA20/1983

The tenancy clause 4(i) unambiguously vested an unconditional unilateral option in the tenant which was validly exercised by written notice during the original term; payment of the increased rent was not a condition precedent to exercise; on due exercise the renewed three-year period is a fixed term within Section 74A(a) and therefore Part II statutory increase machinery does not apply; accordingly the Commissioner's Certificate increasing rent by 30% is invalid and the contractual 15% increase governs.

• Renewal option
• Increase of rent
• Fixed term exclusion (section 74a(a))
• Condition precedent to exercise of option
• Construction of lease clauses

23 Mar 1968

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SUN LEE GODOWN CO LTD

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SUN LEE GODOWN CO LTD

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA227/1967

Clause 3(f) did not operate to deprive the Crown of its ordinary right to determine a monthly tenancy by a common‑law month's notice; there was no convincing evidence that the Crown bargained away that right, and if clause 3(f) had been construed to do so it would be void as repugnant to the nature of the monthly tenancy; judgment for the Crown accordingly.

• Termination of periodic tenancy
• Notice to quit
• Repugnancy
• Construction of lease clauses
• Compensation
• Mesne profits

FU HOP INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CHEN HONG MAN

Citation

FU HOP INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CHEN HONG MAN

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA680/1969

Clauses 4(a) and 4(g) must be construed against the lessor and, properly construed, do not enable the landlord to determine the lease during the three-year term except where the tenant is at fault (provable acts of bankruptcy) or the premises are so substantially damaged as to be rendered unusable; therefore the lease did not contain a provision enabling earlier determination for the purposes of s.2(2)(a) of the Tenancy (Notice of Termination) Ordinance and the tenant's application to set aside the judgment failed.

• Forfeiture
• Notice of termination
• Construction of lease clauses
• Stay of execution
• Costs