Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Grant of new tenancy

Legal area

Court

22 Oct 2002

Manchu Hong Kong Ltd. v. Lau E-Yan Betty

Citation

Manchu Hong Kong Ltd. v. Lau E-Yan Betty
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT381/2001

The Tribunal excluded House 39D as a comparable due to its exceptionally long marketing period and lease date being 9 months after the relevant commencement, applied specified percentage adjustments to six acceptable comparables, averaged the adjusted effective unit rents, applied the subject effective area (279.8 sq.m.) and fixed the new rent at $104,500 per month exclusive of rates, management fees and government rent; a two-year tenancy from 19 Nov 2001 was ordered with deposit adjusted and other prior terms retained save condition 12, with no order as to costs.
11 Dec 1995

CHU MAN ON v. TAM YU HUNG

Citation

CHU MAN ON v. TAM YU HUNG
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA2209/1995

The Tribunal found the respondent did not reasonably require the subject property because the asserted need was not genuine and the accommodation arrangements were contrived and unreasonable; the subject property was not suitable for the needs asserted and the opposition appeared to be for the benefit of other family members rather than the respondent himself; accordingly, on the facts it was manifestly unjust and inequitable to refuse a new tenancy and the opposition failed.
13 Nov 1995

CHU Man On v. TAM Yu Hung

Citation

CHU Man On v. TAM Yu Hung
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2209/1995

The Tribunal found the respondent's asserted reasonable requirement was not established as genuine and was partly contrived to secure accommodation for other family members; the crowdedness evidence was not credible and the applicant's proposed exchange showed refusal would be manifestly unjust and inequitable, therefore the respondent's opposition failed and a new tenancy must be granted to the applicant.
23 Oct 1987

TSUI AH FONG v. CHEUNG BIK HAR AND OTHERS

Citation

TSUI AH FONG v. CHEUNG BIK HAR AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA2431/1987

The Tribunal found that (a) the defective CR 101 was waived by the applicant's conduct; (b) notwithstanding de facto occupation, the written sub-tenancy limited the demised premises and oral evidence could only partially explain the written document within narrow exceptions; (c) the Tribunal lacked statutory power to order a new tenancy immediately from the landlords absent the specified notice to landlords (CR107), evidence of landlord action to terminate the principal tenancy and/or consent of the principal tenant under s.119P; therefore the Tribunal must grant a new sub-tenancy (from the p…
15 May 1985

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD v. WHARF PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD v. WHARF PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA48/1985

Determine rents on the same basis as other lettings in Harbour City (inclusive of amenities and the $3/sq.ft service charge); do not make deductions for defects common to comparables; prefer more recent comparable lettings for relevant dates and adjust unit rates for marginal superiority of Craigie Court over Barnton Court, resulting in fixed monthly rents for each unit.
13 Oct 1983

JOHN R. MCDONALD v. CHAN KING LUEN

Citation

JOHN R. MCDONALD v. CHAN KING LUEN
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA23/1983

The Tribunal held that under the amended Section 115 the new rent must be ascertained as at 9 July 1983 (the date the current tenancy would have ended ignoring Section 119N); Section 119M(4) back-dates the new rent to cover the interim period from 9 July to 9 November 1983; applying relevant comparables the Tribunal fixed the new rent at HK$23,000 per month exclusive of rates and management charges and ordered a new two-year tenancy commencing 10 November 1983.
27 Aug 1982

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. HSU AND SONS LTD

Citation

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. HSU AND SONS LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA2/1982

The Tribunal must determine and fix the fair market rent as at 1 July 1982 by reference to market evidence and proper valuation methods; subjective or historical rents cannot be used as bases for discretionary adjustments. Applying comparables, adjustment for garden, rooftop and supplied appliances, and accounting for a weakening market, the Tribunal fixed monthly rents exclusive of rates and management charges at $38,500 for Units 1 and 2 and $35,500 for Unit 5.
27 Aug 1982

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. HSU AND SONS LTD

Citation

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. HSU AND SONS LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT2/1982

The Tribunal must determine and fix the fair market rent as at 1 July 1982 by reference to market evidence and appropriate valuation methodology; it cannot base the new rent on prior rent or make subjective personal adjustments outside market evidence. Applying comparables, allowances and observed market weakening, the Tribunal fixed monthly rents exclusive of rates and management charges: Unit No.1 $38,500, Unit No.2 $38,500, Unit No.5 $35,500.
27 Aug 1982

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. HSU AND SONS LTD

Citation

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. HSU AND SONS LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT1/1982

The Tribunal held that under Section 119K it must determine and fix the fair market rent as at 1 July 1982 based on objective market evidence; it rejected reliance on the old rents or subjective tenant‑specific adjustments and applied comparables and expert evidence to fix monthly rents for Units 1 and 2 at HK$38,500 and Unit 5 at HK$35,500 (exclusive of rates and management charges).