Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

New tenancy application

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2004

TSUI YEE CHONG v. CHUNG KIN MING

Citation

TSUI YEE CHONG v. CHUNG KIN MING
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD986/2004

The application for possession was dismissed because the written warning did not expressly convey the applicant's intention to take back possession on further default as required by authority, and the possession ground under s.119E(1)(d) is not properly invoked where no application by the tenant for a new tenancy has been lodged; accordingly the statutory preconditions for possession were not satisfied.
1 Mar 2004

KAN LAI BING v. FINE CONNECTION LTD

Citation

KAN LAI BING v. FINE CONNECTION LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT155/2003

The Tribunal held that averaging unit rents across comparables is not an appropriate substitute for market‑based adjustments informed by how landlords and tenants value differences; it rejected the respondent expert's unexplained weighting approach as duplicative, accepted certain adjustments (time by Rental Indices, traffic flow, privacy, limited size discount, condition and appliances where evidenced), rejected unjustified adjustments (renewal v newletting without comparative condition evidence, excessive view and floor level adjustments), adopted an adjusted average unit rate of HKD163.6/s…
5 Jan 2004

MATTHEW M KINGMAN v. GENTLE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

MATTHEW M KINGMAN v. GENTLE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT118/2003

The Tribunal granted the new tenancy for three years from 1 September 2003 and fixed the monthly rent at HK$47,000 exclusive of rates and management fee based on revisions to the comparable rents: excluded an unsuitable comparable (Comparable 4), accepted specific adjustments (time, floor level 0.5% per floor, garden area 345 sqm, car parking at HK$3,000 per space) and rejected speculative adjustments (internal condition, appliance adjustments); the Tribunal apportioned weight between the experts and used a combined approach to derive a unit rate of HK$136.4/m2 leading to the assessed rent of…
12 Sept 2001

Anthony Grahame Stott v. T Y H Ltd.

Citation

Anthony Grahame Stott v. T Y H Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT132/2001

Application is properly an application for a new tenancy under s.117; declarations and costs claimed independently were not reliefs provided by s.117 and must be dismissed; Respondent's conduct did not satisfy the statutory threshold of frivolous or vexatious under s.119R, so no costs order was appropriate; accordingly the application is dismissed and there is no order as to costs.
7 Sept 2001

THOMPSON LEUNG, Marina Boniface v. RAPID GROW LTD.

Citation

THOMPSON LEUNG, Marina Boniface v. RAPID GROW LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT40/2001

Respondent failed to prove a real and demonstrable intention to redevelop the building by 7 February 2001; absent such evidence and given clause 5(12) permitting six months' termination, the respondent suffered no prejudice from a two-year tenancy; market rent was properly determined by relying on seven comparables with lease commencements within one month of 7 February 2001, applying specified adjustments, yielding an assessed rent of HK$26,900 per month exclusive of rates and management fees.
8 May 2001

John Willimott v. South Harbour Properties Ltd.

Citation

John Willimott v. South Harbour Properties Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT81/2001

Rule 18 was inapplicable because the applicant failed to identify a point of law within the Tribunal's jurisdiction for preliminary determination and sought a substantive declaration on affidavit; the late Notice of Opposition could not be considered, therefore the summons was dismissed.
3 Apr 2001

Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung

Citation

Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT462/2000

The Tribunal affirmed that the written tenancy agreement created a term from 15 January 2000 to 14 January 2002 subject to a break clause that required any termination notice not to expire earlier than 12 months from commencement; no valid notice complying with that requirement had been served, the Form CR101 did not satisfy section 119(3)(b) and was therefore invalid, and the additional documents submitted on review were irrelevant or inadmissible; accordingly the tenancy had not ended and the application for a new tenancy was dismissed and the original orders were upheld.
2 Mar 2001

Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung

Citation

Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT462/2000

The written tenancy clearly established a two-year term to 14 January 2002; the landlord's Form CR101 was invalid because it omitted the required back page, was served outside the statutory 6–7 month window, and specified a termination date earlier than effluxion of time contrary to s.119(2) and s.119(3)(b); accordingly the landlord could not validly terminate the tenancy and the application for a new tenancy was dismissed.
21 Oct 1988

YUNG TSING NANCY v. BARROWGATE LTD

Citation

YUNG TSING NANCY v. BARROWGATE LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/1988

The Court held that the Presiding Officer did not commit an error of law in refusing the broad, evidentially framed requests for particulars and in ordering mutual discovery and inspection first; the requests crossed the line into interrogatories/evidence, and ordering discovery was a sensible exercise of discretion that appellate intervention should not disturb absent legal error.