Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protected tenancy

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 1998

CHOI LAI KAM v. TANG KAM CHOI

Citation

CHOI LAI KAM v. TANG KAM CHOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4165/1997

The tenancy was of agricultural land (including dwelling occupied by persons working the land) and therefore not a protected tenancy under Part II; the 1979 Notices to Quit were valid and effective; no implied new tenancy arose because rent was not accepted after notice and there was no act implying consent; defences of laches, acquiescence and waiver fail because the Defendant's reliance was not induced by Plaintiff and Defendant had notice of the Notices; therefore Plaintiff entitled to possession, injunction, mesne profits at $200 per annum from 1 July 1980 and costs (nisi).
13 Jan 1998

WONG TAK YUE v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG TAK YUE v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/1997

Court allowed re-opening due to exceptional circumstances (stay and reliance on Lam Island decision) but dismissed appeal on merits because appellant's affirmed intention to pay rent (and conduct) conclusively showed lack of animus possidendi, so no arguable adverse possession defence existed.
1 Apr 1993

WINSTER DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. PANG YIU CHANG, JOHN AND ANOTHER

Citation

WINSTER DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. PANG YIU CHANG, JOHN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV176/1992

The sale of the flat severing the reversion in respect of the carparking space did not terminate the tenant's protected tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance; s.30 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance allows apportionment of rent and the summary judgment for possession was improperly entered and must be set aside.
26 Jan 1988

FINANCIAL SECRETARY INCORPORATED v. CHAN PO KEE

Citation

FINANCIAL SECRETARY INCORPORATED v. CHAN PO KEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2438/1987

The Crown is excluded from the operation of Part IV by s.50(6) read with s.116(2); upon assignment of the reversion to the Crown on 23 April 1985 the tenancy became excluded from Part IV from that date and the Crown is entitled to the relief sought.
20 Jun 1986

KINGEARN CO LTD v. SIU CHUAN SANG AND OTHERS

Citation

KINGEARN CO LTD v. SIU CHUAN SANG AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPA68/1985

The Tribunal granted the exclusion order subject to conditions and held that compensation to protected tenants must be assessed by capitalising the profit rent (market rent less statutory permitted rent) for the likely remainder of tenancy plus disturbance costs; payments made by tenants to the principal tenant for fitting out (illegal premium) are not directly compensable.
2 Apr 1984

LEE YUK LIN v. LOK SUI WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE YUK LIN v. LOK SUI WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV4/1984

The Court held the defendants were entitled to the protection of the statutory tenancy regime; accordingly the 1979 written agreement and clause 2(j) could not defeat the statutory incidents of the protected tenancy and the plaintiff's claim for possession on that basis was misconceived — appeal allowed.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT22/1983

The Tribunal held that the rateable‑value multiplier in s.53A(4)(a) prescribes only minimum compensation; reasonable compensation must instead compensate the tenant for actual loss measured by the value of his expected future use of the protected tenancy (capitalised profit rent) plus disturbance costs. Past occupation or sentimental value is not a monetary measure. Applying this method the Tribunal quantified each tenant's interest and disturbance and awarded specific sums.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA13/1983

The Tribunal held that the statutory formula based on rateable value applies only to minimum compensation; reasonable compensation must be the equivalent of the tenant's actual loss measured by the value of the tenant's expected future use of the premises (tenant's particular interest) plus reasonable disturbance costs; past occupation or sentimental attachment is not a monetisable measure of compensation; apportionment between principal tenant and sub‑tenant must reflect their respective interests.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT23/1983

The Tribunal held that s.53A(4)(a) minimum multiples of rateable value operate only as a statutory floor; reasonable compensation must be the equivalent of the tenant's loss from being required to give up a protected tenancy early — measured by the value of the tenant's expected future use (the tenant's particular interest, capitalised) plus an allowance for disturbance — and not by past occupation or sentimental attachment or by reliance solely on a rateable-value formula.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA10/1983

The statutory rateable-value multiplier in section 53A(4)(a) prescribes a minimum compensation only; reasonable compensation under section 53A(2) must be the equivalent of the tenant's actual loss from forced early surrender — measured by the value of the tenant's expected future use of the tenancy (capitalised profit rent for the relevant period) plus reasonable disturbance — and not by past occupation sentiment or an automatic multiple of rateable value.