Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Licence termination

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2023

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 500
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP68/2023

The Court granted leave to appeal because the challenge to the implication of a term permitting termination by reasonable notice was arguable and met the threshold for leave under s11AA(6) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance; the Court also granted a stay of execution pending the appeals on undertakings because, absent a stay, execution would likely render the appeals nugatory given the scale, cost and disruption of reinstatement works.
31 Jan 2023

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 8
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM103/2019

The Tribunal concluded there was an implied term in the Chinese Agreement permitting the applicant to terminate the licence by reasonable notice, found six months to be a reasonable period on the evidence, held proprietary estoppel was not established, and therefore refused both respondents' applications for leave to appeal and refused stays of execution; costs ordered against both respondents on their summonses (order nisi).
5 Aug 2014

TO WAI SING v. TO HUNG TAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TO WAI SING v. TO HUNG TAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/2014

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge correctly found there was no exclusive possession or requisite intent by the 1st defendant to establish adverse possession; the 1974 licence was revocable and terminated on devolution of title (1982); the factual findings about residence and credibility were open to the judge and not plainly wrong; refusal of site inspection and refusal to admit new photographs on appeal were proper.
21 Dec 2012

LUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2242/2012

There is a serious question to be tried that the defendants breached the Licence by operating and selling competing products under the Nest business in the Territory; no concluded ad hoc or collateral agreement extended the Licence to March 2013 and the plaintiffs did not waive or are estopped from enforcing termination; plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm to their trade mark rights and the balance of convenience favours granting interlocutory injunctions restraining release of disputed shipments and prohibiting defendants' use of the Lush name and trademarks pending trial.
7 May 2007

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. DON EUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. DON EUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP577/2007

The Plaintiff was entitled to possession because the licence had been terminated and the 1st Defendant had accepted termination; employment disputes are for other tribunals and do not defeat a possession claim, but the court exercised its discretion to grant a two-month stay given the 1st Defendant's personal circumstances.
27 Feb 1998

PAN GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD. v. ANNETTE FAY FANG

Citation

PAN GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD. v. ANNETTE FAY FANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8059/1997

The licence was time-limited and, on the evidence including correspondence, was validly terminated on 31 July 1997; issues arising from the matrimonial settlement, bank guarantee or alleged breaches are matters for separate proceedings and do not prevent an order for vacant possession or assessment of damages for use of the Property from 1 August 1997.
19 May 1994

LAU TAK FAI t/a CURRY HOUSE v. GRAND SEASONS (CENTRAL) FOOD AND BEVERAGES CATERERS CO. LTD.

Citation

LAU TAK FAI t/a CURRY HOUSE v. GRAND SEASONS (CENTRAL) FOOD AND BEVERAGES CATERERS CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV174/1993

The order for vacant possession was set aside because the plaintiff was already in physical possession and the vacant possession remedy was not supportable on the facts; the court will not go behind the formal order to treat it as consent based on notes, and the proper remedy for removal of belongings was an order for removal rather than vacant possession.
21 May 1986

GREEN ISLAND CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED v. LUI WAH t/a SPEEDWELL AUTO SERVICES

Citation

GREEN ISLAND CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED v. LUI WAH t/a SPEEDWELL AUTO SERVICES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/1986

The court dismissed the appeal: respondent proved title; appellant produced no fresh evidence that was unavailable at the original hearing and which would have materially altered the outcome; any licence was validly terminated by notice; the district judge properly exercised discretion under Rule 64(7); Rule 64(7) cannot be used to relitigate matters previously decided when the defendant had opportunity to present the case.