Hong Kong Case Law

20 Oct 1981

HOOVERTON INVESTMENTS LTD v. NG KAI TAI

Citation

HOOVERTON INVESTMENTS LTD v. NG KAI TAI

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ8447/1980

Court found a tenancy existed of the defined 29ft by 2ft premises; there was no evidence of an implied assignment so defendant is a monthly tenant; payment of $2,200 to the prior landlord was admitted and plaintiff failed to discharge the statutory onus under s.116(2)(b) and (3) to prove it was not key money; consequently Part IV was not excluded, defendant entitled to statutory protection and judgment was entered for the defendant with related reliefs.

• Tenancy determination
• Wall-shop occupation
• Key money
• Security of tenure
• Part iv exclusion

27 Nov 1974

CHEN TSE HAO v. YEUNG LUEN CHING

Citation

CHEN TSE HAO v. YEUNG LUEN CHING

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA1523/1974

Judge accepted plaintiff's explanation that $1,500 was compensation for witnessing/procurement and not key money, found the primary user of the premises to be non-domestic on evidence (including Rating & Valuation certificate and expert opinion), and therefore granted judgment for possession to the plaintiff with mesne profits assessed at $2,250 per month from 16 June 1974 plus rates at $8.70 per day until vacant possession, with costs to the plaintiff.

• Key money
• Assignment of lease
• Primary user - domestic vs non-domestic
• Mesne profits
• Possession

3 Jul 1974

SHING SHUN HANG LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. SIU KWONG HONG LTD

Citation

SHING SHUN HANG LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. SIU KWONG HONG LTD

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA1779/1973

The court held that where illegality is alleged the court must inquire into the true nature of the transaction and may admit extrinsic evidence despite an express written denial; on the balance of probabilities the court found key money of $10,500 was paid to the landlord's agent in 1972, rendering the tenancy agreement unenforceable and requiring dismissal of the plaintiff's ejectment claim.

• Key money
• Admissibility of extrinsic evidence
• Controlled premises
• Tenancy tribunal approval
• Illegality
• Ejectment

13 Mar 1974

HO SAM v. CHENG YAN HING

Citation

HO SAM v. CHENG YAN HING

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA641/1973

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence over the defendant's, found no payment of $5,000 or other consideration that would constitute key money or establish a tenancy, held the agreement expired by effluxion of time and granted the plaintiff the relief sought (possession).

• Possession
• Key money
• Tenancy agreement
• Termination of tenancy
• Rent control ordinances

31 Jul 1973

CHU NAI LAP v. LAI CHUEN

Citation

CHU NAI LAP v. LAI CHUEN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV19/1973

Appeal allowed: landlord's claim for possession and mesne profits founded on an agreement tainted by charging an illegal/excessive rent could not be enforced; the contracting-out memorandum was unenforceable because the respondent had committed an offence under the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance by charging rent in excess of the permitted rent; mesne profits based on such illegal rent were not recoverable; order below set aside.

• Illegal contract
• Excessive rent
• Contracting out of statutory protection
• Mesne profits
• Standard rent
• Tenancy tribunal

SHING HING CO (EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIER) LTD v. LEUNG SUI NAM t/a FIRST SHOES CO

Citation

SHING HING CO (EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIER) LTD v. LEUNG SUI NAM t/a FIRST SHOES CO

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA1694/1972

On the evidence the court found no payment of key or construction money and that the plaintiffs were the owners; accordingly section 5(2)(b) meant the Tenancy (Prolonged Duration) Ordinance did not apply, the notice to quit validly terminated the tenancy, and judgment for possession and costs was granted to the plaintiffs.

• Notice to quit
• Tenancy (prolonged duration) ordinance
• Key money
• Termination of tenancy
• Mesne profits
• Costs