Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Recovery of land

  • 6 Jan 2023

    陳淑惠 訴 劉祖榮及另一人

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 75
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2769/2017

    The application for leave to appeal was refused because the first defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: his arguments merely repeated points already considered and rejected, the alleged oral gift could not convey title absent written evidence under the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, no bona fide defence was shown, and limitation did not bar the claim; procedural or affidavit errors were immaterial to the entitlement of the registered owner to recover possession.

  • 29 Aug 2022

    黃西利及另一人 對 黃錦祺

    Citation
    [2022] HKLdT 41
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE165/2022

    The Tribunal held that the applicants, as managers, had authority to commence proceedings to recover possession of the premises after the lease expired; the respondent's opposition and supplementary documents disclosed no reasonable defence and were an abuse of process and therefore were struck out; there was no real prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused; possession, mesne profits at HK$15,000 per month from 1 February 2021 until return of possession, interest at 8 (percent) from 28 June 2022 until payment, and immediate costs were ordered.

  • 14 Dec 2021

    陳雲及另一人 對 振威金屬有限公司及另二人

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 3667
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1824/2013

    The application for a stay of execution was refused because the applicant's grounds were incorrect or unarguable: the defendants' counterclaim targeted the first plaintiff only; the limitation defenses were not pleaded or relied on at trial and could not properly be raised at this enforcement stage; the judgment correctly identified the first plaintiff as liable for rent, rates, government rent and mesne profits; and a stay would be unjust given the prolonged unlawful occupation and significant arrears, so the applicant failed to show an arguable appeal that would justify a stay.

  • 6 Aug 2007

    MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU

    Citation
    MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1441/2006

    The claim seeks vacant possession of a stall which is 'land' under s.2 DCO; therefore s.35 applies. The stall's annual value or rateable value prima facie exceeds the District Court jurisdictional limit (HKD240,000), so the District Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter. The action is not struck out under s.41(2) because the plaintiff did not know and could not reasonably have known the court lacked jurisdiction; instead the case is transferred to the Court of First Instance and costs of the application are costs in the cause.

  • 20 Jan 2006

    GIOCONDO MARIO MAURIELLO v. ANDREW KWONG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    GIOCONDO MARIO MAURIELLO v. ANDREW KWONG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4662/2005

    The District Court has jurisdiction under s35 of the District Court Ordinance because the annual rent ($108,000) is below the statutory limit; in the absence of any transfer under s41 the Court retains jurisdiction over the counterclaim; the defendants failed to demonstrate a preliminary/technical objection or a real bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for outstanding rent and possession; the counterclaim was unsustainable against the plaintiff because the alleged wrongful acts were by a third-party manager and the defendants lacked standing and failed to raise the complaint with the l…

  • 28 Nov 2000

    OVERSEAS TRUST BANK LTD v. NGAI YIU MING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    OVERSEAS TRUST BANK LTD v. NGAI YIU MING AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP2780/2000

    A monetary claim for monies due under a mortgage is an action on the personal debt and falls within the District Court's contract monetary jurisdiction limited to $600,000; section 37(1)(c) (equity jurisdiction) does not extend the District Court's jurisdiction to monetary enforcement of a mortgage debt exceeding $600,000, therefore the proceeding was outside the District Court's jurisdiction and was transferred to the Court of First Instance.

  • 5 May 1982

    AVANT INVESTMENT (F.E.) LTD v. PO PING MEDICINE CO(a firm) AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    AVANT INVESTMENT (F.E.) LTD v. PO PING MEDICINE CO(a firm) AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5001/1981

    The District Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for possession brought under the redevelopment provision (s.125 equivalent) of the Landlord & Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance and that special statutory jurisdiction is not constrained by the pecuniary limit in s.35 of the District Court Ordinance; furthermore the repeal of s.125 by Amendment No.52/81 did not affect notices to quit served before commencement (clause 14(2)), so the saved s.125 applies to this case.