Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relief from forfeiture

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

PERVEZ AKHTER v. JACKY CHAU KING YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKLdT 21
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1575/2025

Conditions 3 and 5 of the Early Termination Agreement were not 'secondary' and imposed specific obligations including permission to remove items; Respondents failed to prove permission (breach of Condition 5) and provided insufficient evidence that fixtures/equipment were left and in working order (insufficient to satisfy Condition 3); acceptance of $35,000 and keys did not constitute waiver by conduct because the sum was part-payment of arrears and acceptance pre-dated the breach consequences; CCTV material did not meet Ladd v Marshall criteria and would not likely change the result; no argu…
11 Mar 2024

AHN, EUNSUN v. WO KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 25
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD152/2024

Applicant failed to serve a valid notice under section 58(1) CPO specifying the particular breach and requiring remedy; even if a valid notice had been served the breach alleged was capable of remedy and the Tribunal would, in the exercise of its discretion under section 58(2), have granted relief from forfeiture; accordingly no cause of action for forfeiture had accrued and the application for recovery of possession is dismissed.
28 Feb 2024

NICE EXCEL LTD v. CLUB PRIMO (LKF) LTD, formerly known as PRIMO GROUP LTD

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 22
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE7/2024

The review was dismissed because the Respondent failed to plead or produce evidence of the alleged oral agreement before judgment or the relief expiration date; a partial payment does not constitute consideration to extend time for payment; under authorities the tenant cannot insist on applying the deposit to outstanding arrears in these proceedings; rule 14(1A)(a) supports determination at first hearing.
7 Feb 2024

陳永發對劉世杰

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 14
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1556/2023

Default judgment was maintained and the application to set it aside was dismissed because the respondent failed to show valid service or excusable absence plus he had no real prospect of success on the merits: the lease was binding (tenancy by estoppel), the registered owner had title to land and superstructure, and the respondent's asserted factual and legal defences could not realistically succeed.
29 Mar 2023

DAILY TECH HONGKONG CO LTD v. iADVANTAGE LIMITED

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1415/2022

Higher interlocutory standard applied because the injunction would effectively determine the action; plaintiff failed to establish a clear and unequivocal representation or sufficient detrimental reliance to found waiver/estoppel; plaintiff could not demonstrate ability to provide the required bank guarantee or equivalent security or show that reasonable notice had not cured any retraction; relief from forfeiture was not available because plaintiff could not make good the default; damages were not shown to be inadequate; therefore interlocutory injunction refused and costs ordered against pla…
2 Apr 2020

HING SHING CO v. MEHMOOD ADIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 2
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1762/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondents had no arguable point of law and no reasonable prospect of success: they repeatedly failed to file the mandatory Notice of Opposition and any evidence despite clear written and oral directions and available interpretation, their explanations were implausible, and the alleged defence (water leakage) did not justify withholding rent nor cure procedural non-compliance; therefore the Tribunal's judgment ordering possession and payment of arrears stands subject to the existing relief-from-forfeiture condition.
27 Feb 2019

NG YIH LIN ELAINE v. GROB EDOARDO EMILIO

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 13
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1992/2018

Respondent was in arrears of rent; his asserted defenses and set-off claims were unsupported or disproportionate; landlord had no implied repair obligation and no agreement permitting deduction; therefore applicant entitled to possession, arrears/mesne profits and costs, subject to conditional relief from forfeiture if respondent pays arrears and costs by 18 February 2019.
7 Sept 2016

CHENG CHO NG v. ADAMS GEORGE HARPER

Citation

CHENG CHO NG v. ADAMS GEORGE HARPER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1593/2016

The 2016 tenancy was valid and binding; respondent remained liable for rent at $7,500 per month and could not lawfully withhold rent for the alleged disrepair; the Lands Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's counterclaim for damages under the Ordinance; the applicant was entitled to possession subject to relief from forfeiture if the respondent paid the specified arrears and costs by the relief expiration date.
1 Sept 2016

WE SHARP LTD v. SAMTANI ANAND P.

Citation

WE SHARP LTD v. SAMTANI ANAND P.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1548/2016

The Tribunal found the whatsapp communications established the rent reduction took effect from 9 May 2016 (leaving $1,000 outstanding for May), the respondent was not entitled to withhold rent for the termite issue because the landlord acted promptly and there was insufficient evidence of uninhabitability or of landlord causation, equitable set-off did not apply, and therefore judgment was entered for the applicant for delivery of vacant possession and payment of arrears subject to a limited deduction and conditional relief from forfeiture if arrears and costs paid by 8 September 2016.
22 Apr 2016

文貴益對劉炳興

Citation

文貴益對劉炳興
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1953/2015

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the parties' long-standing conduct created a yearly periodic tenancy (2 February cycle starting 3 February) and respondent was in arrears from 3 February 2014; applicant entitled to possession and costs but relief under Cap.4 s.21F granted conditionally if respondent paid all arrears and costs into the Tribunal by 10 May 2016, in which event forfeiture would be waived and the tenancy reinstated.