Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lease interpretation

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2024

ABERDEEN COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 729
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1178/2022

The Layout Plan's "Shop & Cinema" marking is descriptive of the lots' initial development parameters under GC4(a) and the General Layout Provision and does not constitute a continuing user restriction; the General Layout Provision governs submission and alteration of a development plan during the development phase and does not impose ongoing use limitations. Therefore the proposed RCHE use is not barred and does not require the Director's prior written consent under the Subject COEs; only the express Industrial Purposes Prohibition operates as a continuing user restriction.
27 Dec 2023

EASTRADE HOLDINGS LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1736/2021

The consent clause in the 1930 Crown Lease must be read in the context of the Kowloon Tong Garden Estate and the building covenant; 'any other messuage or dwellinghouse' refers to any house other than the Director‑approved house and therefore covers replacement/rebuilding as well as additional houses; charging a premium for increased development intensity does not constitute derogation from grant given the Estate purpose and lease terms; the Plaintiff failed to prove waiver of the consent clause and the Director's exercise of discretion was not shown to be arbitrary or irrational. Accordingly…
14 Apr 2023

MORE SPACE LTD t/a TAIPAN MANAGEMENT CO 對 LOK HING LOGISTICS COMPANY及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 573
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT3151/2022

For DCDT 3151/2022 the court discharged the seizure order because the plaintiff's claimed amount exceeded the recoverable sum as properly calculated; no order as to costs. For DCDT 683/2023 the court dismissed the defendants' application because the lease (clause 4(a)) validly allows suspension of the HKD10,000 concession when the tenant is in arrears, the defendants admitted non‑payment for the three months and therefore arrears existed; the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs related to the seizure application.
25 Aug 2022

AFH HONG KONG STORES, LTD v. FULTON CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV201/2021

SC(13) Part [1] ('bare shell' condition on each floor) requires the tenant to return the structural frame of each demised floor, which includes reinstatement of entirely or partly demolished floors absent a valid Part [2] notice; Part [2] requires a specific 9 months' prior written notice by the landlord to require leaving or removal of particular items; the three landlord letters did not constitute valid Part [2] notices; appeal allowed in part, lower court orders set aside and matter remitted for trial on outstanding issues.
20 Jan 2022

VEMBER LORD LTD v. THE SWATCH GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 279
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1113/2020

The abatement clause was construed as addressing events that affect the physical condition, use or access to the premises and not pure economic loss from reduced customers; the defendant failed to show the premises were rendered unfit or inaccessible or that any specified statutory closing/condemnation event occurred; frustration did not apply because the obligations were not rendered radically different and the extraordinary circumstances produced at most economic hardship; accordingly the defendant had no arguable defence and summary judgment stands.
30 Jul 2021

STAR WIN ENTERPRISES LTD v. THE ONE PROPERTY LTD (formerly known as CHINESE ESTATES (THE ONE) LTD)

Citation

[2021] HKDC 922
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4810/2020

The Order 14A application was dismissed because the court did not have the necessary factual matrix to fairly construe Clause 8 or to imply terms or resolve alleged partial frustration; the partial frustration question was drafted unclearly; there were triable issues including possible abuse of process (Henderson) and voluntariness of payments, so even if legal questions were decided for the plaintiff a trial would still be necessary; accordingly the court declined to exercise its residual discretion to determine the questions summarily.
9 Mar 2021

MEMORIAL PARK HONG KONG LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 262
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV436/2018

The Court held that GC 15 includes cremation ashes (following Regal Shining), the government had not abandoned enforcement of GC 15 or SC 1(a), the plaintiff was in breach of GC 15 and SC 1(a), the late application for a stay was refused for being unmeritorious and disruptive and costs consequences were ordered; declarations concerning GC 16 and SC 3 and the refund order to customers were set aside due to lack of appropriate evidence and legal basis respectively.
3 Dec 2019

SUNEVISION HOLDINGS LTD v. HONG KONG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS CORPORATION

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1351
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP135/2019

The Court refused the proposed amendments and the renewed application for leave to appeal because the proposed material was irrelevant or would obfuscate the real issues, the proper construction of the Lease Restrictions and Data Centre Policy is a question of law for the court and not dependent on internal or temporary positions, and the applicant failed to show the amendments had a reasonable prospect of success or met the narrow criteria for late amendment; the Corporation's approach that the identified business models did not necessarily amount to exclusive possession was not shown to be…
30 Apr 2019

冠成行有限公司對卓越泛亞有限公司

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 31
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE222/2019

Tribunal found the applicant's account more credible on available documents and testimony: the May 2018 payment clause reflected the parties' arrangement and respondent was not entitled to treat the prior tenant's deposit as discharging his obligation; building works did not excuse payment; therefore respondent liable for arrears and must surrender vacant possession unless arrears and costs are paid into the Tribunal by the specified date to avoid forfeiture.
30 Oct 2018

WAYGOOD INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITERD v. BEST PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 85
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE678/2018

The Tribunal found no binding set‑off mechanism affecting the applicant: the Lease expressly forbids deduction or set‑off, the Tri‑Partite Agreement did not make the applicant a party or expressly provide for set‑off, the single prior set‑off was an isolated commercial accommodation, and parol evidence did not suffice to vary the written Lease; accordingly the respondent must deliver vacant possession and pay arrears subject to limited relief from forfeiture if payment is made by the specified date.