Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Renewal option

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2020

HANTEC INVESTMENT LTD v. LI YAU MAN

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 40
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1313/2019

Clause 3 is clear and does not confer a perpetual or contractual option to renew; there was no shared common assumption or evidence of clear promise sufficient for estoppel by convention; therefore the 2017 tenancy expired on 31 October 2019; Respondent must deliver vacant possession and pay mesne profits at the contractual rent rate from 1 November 2019 until delivery of possession; costs to Applicant.
31 Dec 2003

CRIC MOTOR WORKS LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

CRIC MOTOR WORKS LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4540/2003

The plaintiff had executed a Deed of Surrender and a new tenancy on 28 March 2002 for different premises expiring 31 December 2003; there was no misrepresentation at the time about redevelopment scheduled for 1 January 2004 and the GPA only learned of postponement in November 2003; the plaintiff's prospects of success were poor, damages were an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the defendant, therefore the interlocutory injunction was refused.
19 Apr 1989

ORIPUMA INVESTMENTS LTD v. WALTER YEUNG & CO

Citation

ORIPUMA INVESTMENTS LTD v. WALTER YEUNG & CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1913/1988

The renewal clause must be construed to calculate rent by reference to the average unit rent per square foot for comparable office accommodation in the building, excluding shop rents but including office rents obtained by the landlord (including those paid by Lane Crawford for floors used as offices), because this construction gives effect to the commercial purpose of the clause and avoids an artificial result; the correct resultant rent is $15.17 per square foot per month.
31 Jan 1984

PACIFIC REALTY LTD v. LAM SAU MUI

Citation

PACIFIC REALTY LTD v. LAM SAU MUI
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMP20/1983

The option in clause 4(i) was validly and unconditionally exercised by the tenant by notice in November 1979; payment of the increased rent was not a condition precedent to exercising the option; the duly exercised renewal created a further fixed three year term within the meaning of s74A(a) and accordingly Part II statutory machinery for increase of rent was excluded; the Commissioner's Certificate increasing rent under Part II is a nullity.
31 Jan 1984

PACIFIC REALTY LTD v. LAM SAU MUI

Citation

PACIFIC REALTY LTD v. LAM SAU MUI
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA20/1983

The tenancy clause 4(i) unambiguously vested an unconditional unilateral option in the tenant which was validly exercised by written notice during the original term; payment of the increased rent was not a condition precedent to exercise; on due exercise the renewed three-year period is a fixed term within Section 74A(a) and therefore Part II statutory increase machinery does not apply; accordingly the Commissioner's Certificate increasing rent by 30% is invalid and the contractual 15% increase governs.

Hong Kong Case Law

HANTEC INVESTMENT LTD v. LI YAU MAN

CRIC MOTOR WORKS LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

ORIPUMA INVESTMENTS LTD v. WALTER YEUNG & CO

PACIFIC REALTY LTD v. LAM SAU MUI

PACIFIC REALTY LTD v. LAM SAU MUI