Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forfeiture for non-payment of rent

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2022

黃靜對姚賽清

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 45
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD706/2022

The tribunal refused leave to appeal and refused a stay because the respondent failed to identify any legal error in the tribunal's earlier order, showed no reasonable prospect of success on appeal given clear rent arrears and absence of a legally cognizable defence or contractual repair obligation, and failed to demonstrate additional reasons to justify a stay; consequently the non-standard review application was dismissed and costs awarded to the applicant.
15 May 2017

RAMADOUR INDUSTRIES LTD v. BULLEN CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

Citation

RAMADOUR INDUSTRIES LTD v. BULLEN CHRISTIAN ANTHONY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV19/2016

Section 21F of the High Court Ordinance establishes that a tenant may obtain relief against forfeiture once as of right during a lease term; subsequent defaults within the same term require the tenant to demonstrate good cause for further relief under s.21F(1A). The Lands Tribunal did not err in law in refusing relief on the facts, and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Apr 2005

MUI LAI SZE v. HAU CHI FAI

Citation

MUI LAI SZE v. HAU CHI FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV317/2004

Section 21F applies to the Lands Tribunal default judgment; the 13 July 2004 order was deficient for failing to provide the statutory minimum period for payment and service; because the appellant had since paid and was current, the proper relief is a declaration that he holds the premises according to the tenancy without any new lease and the appeal is allowed with costs reserved as ordered.
12 Sept 1996

Chan Pui Yiu v. Bond Star Development Ltd.

Citation

Chan Pui Yiu v. Bond Star Development Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV142/1996

The Lands Tribunal was entitled to examine the factual claim of adverse possession to determine whether it had jurisdiction; having found adverse possession unmade it properly proceeded on the footing of a tenancy and made an order for possession which was competent because forfeiture was not based solely on non‑payment of rent; therefore the notice of appeal disclosed no arguable point of law and should be struck out.
28 May 1991

LI SHAU CHUN v. CHAN SIU MING

Citation

LI SHAU CHUN v. CHAN SIU MING
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA626/1991

The summons for an unless order was dismissed because the request for particulars was misconceived given the defence, and in any event a default judgment could not be entered by the presiding officer because Rule 13A(2) requires a written application to the Registrar supported by affidavit; the officer therefore dismissed the summons and did not grant default judgment.
30 Sept 1988

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD v. LEUNG NIE CHUNG CHARLES

Citation

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD v. LEUNG NIE CHUNG CHARLES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV61/1988

The appeal is dismissed because the tenant defaulted in payment of rent, the Lands Tribunal record and corroborating evidence show the tenant was given the opportunity to give evidence and did not do so or adduce the asserted defences, no special circumstances justified adjournment, and the tenant was estopped from disputing title; therefore the Tribunal correctly enforced forfeiture and recovery of arrears and mesne profits.
24 Feb 1982

POON SHU AND ANOTHER v. SO TSUI-SIM AND OTHERS

Citation

POON SHU AND ANOTHER v. SO TSUI-SIM AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ15109/1981

The District Judge set aside the earlier judgment because the plaintiffs' Rule 22 affidavit and exhibits were inadequate and ambiguous and because the premises may be governed by Part IV of Cap.7, such that the District Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction; consequently the appropriate remedy was to transfer the action to the High Court.
29 Oct 1980

SYLVIA SETO AND ANOTHER v. KOWLOON SHOPPING CENTER LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SYLVIA SETO AND ANOTHER v. KOWLOON SHOPPING CENTER LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1891/1978

The court held that the sub‑tenants' undertaking did not in itself bar an application for equitable relief, but in Hong Kong—where there is no statutory provision equivalent to s.146(4) LPA 1925 to vest the head‑lease or apportion rent—the court could not safely grant relief limited to the part occupied without causing grave injustice to the landlord. On the facts, relief was conditional: judgment for possession and mesne profits was awarded but stayed if the second defendants elected within 21 days to stand in the original lessee's shoes for the remainder of the term and comply with specifie…
8 Jan 1976

KONG HOA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LAU HUNG KWAN

Citation

KONG HOA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LAU HUNG KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2018/1973

Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance confers exclusive jurisdiction on the District Court for disputes concerning domestic tenancies: s.68(6) removes ordinary limits on the District Court and s.68(7) makes its decisions final, therefore the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes; the Supreme Court retains only jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction and to award costs, but cannot transfer or try the substantive issue once it finds a lack of jurisdiction.
24 Dec 1971

HOP HING (A FIRM) v. LAM PAK

Citation

HOP HING (A FIRM) v. LAM PAK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV7/1971

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's implicit findings—that the premises had remained untenanted after 16 August 1945, were rendered habitable by extensive repairs carried out at the landlord's expense meeting the statutory threshold, and that the evidence (including the Tenancy Tribunal record and contractor's estimate) supported those findings—were supported by the evidence and not shown to be per incuriam; the appellant had not preserved or pleaded the alternative case (entirely new building) below and could not raise it for the first time on appeal to defeat jurisdiction.