Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Occupation permit

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2023

好安樓業主立案法團 v. LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 26
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM129/2020

Photographic evidence established that the respondent stored personal belongings in adjacent common areas and thus is prohibited from storing items in common areas under s34I and the DMC; however, storage inside the demised car park, while a change of use, was not shown to be a nuisance or to involve hazardous/combustible materials and the DMC did not expressly prohibit storage, so the applicant's claim to remove items and reinstate the car park was dismissed; injunctive relief must be proportionate and the appropriate remedy was a prohibition against occupying common areas rather than orderi…
29 Jul 2022

TSUI LAI WAI v. THE INCORPORATEDOWNERS OF LOK KU HOUSE

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 32
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM58/2021

Applicant failed to prove entitlement to reconnection under Clause 3(d) because the evidence shows the supply apparatus was likely installed only after the UBW were erected and there is no proof of the requisite collective/majority or unanimous approval for installation over common parts; further, after compliance with the demolition injunction the units would most likely revert to uncovered flat roofs with no permitted lawful use making reconnection meaningless; therefore declarations and order were refused.
23 Mar 2020

CHAN CARRIE v. RICHWAY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1029/2019

Applying Court of Final Appeal authority (notably Jumbo Gold) and appellate guidance on the meaning of good title, the court found that the Occupation Permit and long‑standing, conspicuous non‑domestic use (with Government knowledge) removed any real risk of government enforcement; therefore the requisition was satisfactorily answered and the Vendors can give good title.
23 Mar 2020

WIELDER PROPERTIES INVESTMENT CO LTD v. RICHWAY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1028/2019

The court held the requisition was satisfactorily answered and the vendors can give good title because, on the facts (an occupation permit authorising non‑domestic use, long standing use, government awareness and acquiescence) there was no real risk of government enforcement; Jumbo Gold and subsequent appellate authorities govern the proper test for good title and must be followed over decisions that treated any risk as fatal.
16 Mar 2018

FELAN INVESTMENT LTD v. SARWIN INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 17
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM7/2015

The Tribunal found A had substantially obtained the relief sought because the outdoor stack-up units were removed/relocated so as not to obstruct the display window; R1's uncooperative and evasive conduct about ownership justified departure from the usual rule on discontinuance; accordingly R1 must bear the majority of A's costs (90%) and must directly pay R2's costs of defending A's claim; R1 must also pay the bulk of the costs of the costs argument (80%) with R2 paying 20%; costs on District Court scale and to be taxed if not agreed.
17 Mar 2016

HAPPY ENOUGH LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

HAPPY ENOUGH LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR5/2012

The Tribunal held that on proper construction of the Government Lease and relevant building statutes shop use was permitted where the building as a whole qualified as "domestic"; alternatively long open shop use and governmental conduct amounted to abandonment/waiver of the restrictive covenant such that s.12(b) LRO did not bar compensation; the applicant failed to prove probable development potential (Siu Sau Kuen limb ii) so residual valuation for development value was rejected; the appropriate valuation by direct comparison for shop use (vacant possession) was HK$10,960,000 (alternative re…
5 Feb 2016

TANG CHI WAI v. LAI YIK TING

Citation

TANG CHI WAI v. LAI YIK TING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3844/2013

Defendant failed to prove good title prior to the agreed completion date because the 1st and 2nd requisitions were not answered satisfactorily; the risk of enforcement was not remote or fanciful; therefore summary judgment is warranted: plaintiff entitled to repayment of deposits with interest, damages to be assessed, and an equitable lien over the property as security.
21 Jan 2016

WONG WAI YIP v. HO WAI FUNG

Citation

WONG WAI YIP v. HO WAI FUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2221/2015

The court granted leave to adduce expert evidence only in relation to the Agreed Directions (the agreed issues) and declined to grant leave for the defendant to adduce expert evidence on the additional outstanding historical issues as those issues were irrelevant to the plaintiff's application; accordingly the Agreed Directions (as amended) were ordered and the Other Directions proposed by the defendant were refused; costs were ordered nisi in favour of the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for counsel, the order to become absolute absent application within 14 days.
28 Aug 2015

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FOO HOO CENTRE v. HONG KONG ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTS OF CHINA

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FOO HOO CENTRE v. HONG KONG ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTS OF CHINA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1037/2014

The judge applied RHC Order 28 r8 and found no genuine or substantial disputes of fact that would require conversion to a writ action because the defendant's use was not in dispute and the remaining questions are principally matters of construction of the Occupation Permit and clause 5.13 of the DMC; the plaintiff accepted the defendant's factual evidence and would not seek cross-examination; therefore the Master's refusal to order continuation as if begun by writ was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
23 Jun 2015

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE v. HONG KONG QUALITY BRANDS ALLIANCE LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE v. HONG KONG QUALITY BRANDS ALLIANCE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA947/2014

Summary judgment was not appropriate because the defendant raised arguably triable equitable defences (acquiescence, estoppel, laches) and there were credibility and factual issues requiring trial; accordingly defendant was granted leave to defend and to amend its Defence, the strike out application was dismissed, the supplemental affirmation was not allowed in its present form, and costs consequences were ordered in favour of the plaintiff.