Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of termination

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2024

HUM MATTHEW TA v. ALLIED WAY SECURITY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 134
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3869/2019

The court found there was no clear and unambiguous oral dismissal on 23 October 2018; plaintiff knowingly and unjustifiably absented himself from work from 24-31 October 2018 and removed the office router without notice, conduct which amounted to a repudiatory breach and serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal under clause 13 of the contract and s9 of the Employment Ordinance; accordingly defendant was not liable for Golden Parachute or payment in lieu except for agreed outstanding small sums which were awarded.
15 Jul 2016

CHEUNG PING SUM v. WONG CHI HANG as administrator of the estate of WONG SUN, deceased

Citation

CHEUNG PING SUM v. WONG CHI HANG as administrator of the estate of WONG SUN, deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1490/2016

On the interlocutory evidence the plaintiff established an arguable case of a bare licence to occupy and demonstrated risk of continuing interference; the court held that an interlocutory injunction preserving the plaintiff's peaceful occupation for a fixed, objectively reasonable period (three months) was justified. The court rejected the claim of a contractual licence on the evidence and ordered amendment of the estate schedule to disclose omitted joint bank accounts since defendant did not oppose disclosure.
15 Mar 2016

WONG CHI LEUNG v. JUBAULT BERTRAND ANTOINE

Citation

WONG CHI LEUNG v. JUBAULT BERTRAND ANTOINE
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE106/2016

The respondent failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success and did not provide an adequate explanation for non‑attendance; the default possession order was regularly entered and should not be set aside; proposed counterclaims are not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, therefore the application to set aside is dismissed and costs awarded to the applicant.
6 Jan 2010

LOO LEE SUNG v. THE ROYAL DESIGNER LTD

Citation

LOO LEE SUNG v. THE ROYAL DESIGNER LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA680/2008

The lease was validly terminated under Clause 6 because the premises were rendered unfit for occupation by blocked common drains; plaintiff gave proper written notice after the one‑month period; defendant failed to deliver vacant possession and withheld rent, giving plaintiff entitlement to immediate delivery of vacant possession, mesne profits at the contractual rent rate from 7 December 2007 until delivery, interest as ordered and costs; the defendant's estoppel defence failed for lack of evidence and the counterclaim remained dismissed after provisional striking out.
9 Aug 2006

DELTA GRAND LTD v. MULTICOM INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

DELTA GRAND LTD v. MULTICOM INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2550/2005

The Notice of Termination, being a declaration made more than 15 years before the present sale, falls within CPO s.13(4) and therefore, as between Multicom and Delta, constitutes sufficient evidence that the Principal and Supplemental Agreements were terminated; the burden lies on Delta to prove otherwise, and consequently Delta's application for return of the deposit fails.
5 Jan 2006

CHUN KIN MING v. SANDRA MARY ELIZABETH DIAS

Citation

CHUN KIN MING v. SANDRA MARY ELIZABETH DIAS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1650/2005

The break clause was ambiguous and, on the balance of probabilities having regard to the evidence (including a rent reduction for the initial months and the parties' expectations), the parties intended a fixed 2-year tenancy with a break exercisable only after 12 months; the notice dated 15 May 2005 was therefore invalid, so the possession application failed and prior orders and the writ were set aside.
28 Jan 2003

TEEN ENERGY LTD v. AXEWOOD LTD

Citation

TEEN ENERGY LTD v. AXEWOOD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3808/2002

A notice which communicates termination in accordance with the tenancy agreement and specifies the termination date is capable of fulfilling the Notice of Termination required by section 122(1); the insertion of a definition (s120A) and related sections did not impose an additional requirement that the notice must expressly refer to Part 5 or section 122, and the Legislature would have specified any such formal requirement; therefore the 13 March 2002 notice was valid and the Master's judgments for possession and interim mesne profits stand.
27 Jun 2000

LIN HEUNG TEA HOUSE & BAKERY (a firm) v. CORAL KING LTD.

Citation

LIN HEUNG TEA HOUSE & BAKERY (a firm) v. CORAL KING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA19563/1998

No oral renewal was concluded because the Tenant's representative lacked authority to agree an increase to $65,000; landlord waived any right to require reinstatement on delivery of possession and therefore cannot claim mesne profits for the reinstatement period; landlord is entitled only to a quantum meruit for management services assessed at $53,328; Tenant is entitled to return of deposit and agreed reimbursements.
8 Sept 1999

RISE CHAMPION HOLDINGS LTD. v. TRUE LINES INDUSTRIAL LTD.

Citation

RISE CHAMPION HOLDINGS LTD. v. TRUE LINES INDUSTRIAL LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1680/1998

The court admitted the fresh evidence as elaboration only; held the option to renew was not exercised in time; construed the notice of termination as valid and effective for 13 December 1997; found the defendant failed to prove receipt timing and thus no triable defence on service; found a tenuous triable defence on the alleged oral agreement limited to monetary claims; granted conditional leave to defend subject to the defendant paying into court HK$821,890.20 within 14 days, and upheld the possession order while setting aside final monetary judgment only on that condition.
1 Aug 1997

BANCA DI ROMA SOCIETA PER AZIONI v. LISGOLD HOLDINGS LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

BANCA DI ROMA SOCIETA PER AZIONI v. LISGOLD HOLDINGS LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL72/1997

The court granted summary judgment against the 1st Defendant because the evidence showed the 1st Defendant accepted the novation and acknowledged the debt, leaving no triable issue as to liability; however, summary judgment was refused as to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants because arguable triable issues existed whether the novation discharged the guarantors (given consent, notice and resignation facts and the complex law on reservation clauses), requiring full trial determination.