Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counter-notice

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 1974

FUNG KWAI CHING (LANDLADY) v. YICK KIT BING (TENANT)

Citation

FUNG KWAI CHING (LANDLADY) v. YICK KIT BING (TENANT)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ190/1973

Because the respondent served an unqualified counter-notice thereby accepting the notice to quit as valid and the applicant acted on that acceptance to pursue the application, the respondent is estopped/has waived the right to challenge the notice's validity and cannot now do so; therefore the notice is treated as valid and the application may proceed.
24 Sept 1973

CHEUNG WONG OI CHU v. CHOI YICK MING AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG WONG OI CHU v. CHOI YICK MING AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ530/1972

The Court held that Part II must be given a liberal remedial construction: sub‑tenants of premises affected by a notice to quit have locus standi to serve counter‑notices, be joined and be heard; where a notice to quit under s54(2) is served the court must consider hardship of tenant and joined sub‑tenants under s54(7); and where a superior tenancy is terminated by notice or order and sub‑tenants were not bound by posting or joined, a new tenancy may arise by operation of law under the proviso to s54(1)(d), thereby affording statutory protection to sub‑tenants.
14 Sept 1973

LEE KWOK-WUN v. YEUNG HING-KWAN

Citation

LEE KWOK-WUN v. YEUNG HING-KWAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ114/1973

The proviso to s.7 must be given its wide discretionary effect and nothing in s.7(6) or s.7(7) makes a counter-notice from the sub-tenant a sine qua non for the court to consider the sub-tenant's hardship; therefore the court may take into account the hardship of a sub-tenant who did not serve a counter-notice and, on the facts, granting possession would cause greater hardship so the application is dismissed.
24 Jan 1973

WONG TO AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI-CHUNG

Citation

WONG TO AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI-CHUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8163/1972

On the evidence the court found the notice to quit was posted at the entrance in July 1971 and was displayed for the requisite period; accordingly s.7(3) was complied with, the Rent Ordinance procedure was effective and the plaintiffs' sub-tenancies were not preserved by non-compliance. The plaintiffs' claim for declaration and injunction was therefore dismissed; additionally the court held the Ordinance confers procedural (not substantive) protections on sub-tenants though they retain limited rights such as serving counter-notices and seeking relief against forfeiture.
18 May 1972

PANG HANG FONG v. TO YUK LIN

Citation

PANG HANG FONG v. TO YUK LIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2158/1971

The prescribed statutory form for a counter-notice is mandatory and the District Court lacks power to treat a non-prescribed counter-notice as effective; accordingly the defendant's document, not being in the prescribed form, did not defeat the plaintiff's entitlement to possession and mesne profits.
16 Dec 1970

TSE KAM v. LAU TAM SAU YING

Citation

TSE KAM v. LAU TAM SAU YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1309/1970

Where a tenant has validly served a counter-notice under s.7(6) the statutory scheme (notably s.7(7) and s.16(6)) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the District Court to determine such applications; therefore the Supreme Court should transfer the proceedings to the District Court to avoid duplication and because the District Court has jurisdiction to hear the action.
LAM KAM v. LUI KUNG POK

Citation

LAM KAM v. LUI KUNG POK
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1930/1971

Where a tenant serves no valid counter-notice under the Rent Increases Ordinance a correctly worded notice to quit takes effect and the landlord is entitled to possession, rent arrears and mesne profits; the Court/Registrar lacks power under the applicable Rules to extend time for service of the statutory counter-notice; duplicative proceedings may be permitted to run with costs consequences rather than voiding the valid remedy.

Hong Kong Case Law

FUNG KWAI CHING (LANDLADY) v. YICK KIT BING (TENANT)

CHEUNG WONG OI CHU v. CHOI YICK MING AND OTHERS

LEE KWOK-WUN v. YEUNG HING-KWAN

WONG TO AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI-CHUNG

PANG HANG FONG v. TO YUK LIN

TSE KAM v. LAU TAM SAU YING

LAM KAM v. LUI KUNG POK