Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Rent assessment

  • 30 Jul 2013

    WONG HANG FONG 對 NG YIN KEI

    Citation
    WONG HANG FONG 對 NG YIN KEI
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD760/2013

    On review the Tribunal found no error in its factual findings that the premises lacked electricity from 6 April 2013 and that the tenant could not restore supply; the police/fire forced entry and relocking to protect the premises did not constitute a landlord breach sufficient to defeat a claim for possession; the tenant failed to notify the landlord as required and failed to surrender vacant possession, therefore the Tribunal ordered the respondent to return vacant possession by 30 July 2013 and maintained other orders including liability for rent arrears.

  • 6 Oct 2006

    BEACHSHORE LTD AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

    Citation
    BEACHSHORE LTD AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL81/2005

    S.29 of the Government Rent (Assessment and Collection) Ordinance creates a self-contained regime governing holding over orders and their cancellation; the Commissioner had no wider power under s.46 of the Interpretation Ordinance to withdraw holding over orders at will and thus acted ultra vires when purporting to withdraw such orders pursuant to s.46; cancellation remains possible under the specific grounds in s.29(5) where the Commissioner honestly and reasonably forms the opinion that rent will become irrecoverable or an appellant is unreasonably delaying the appeal; the Commissioner’s ju…

  • 10 Jan 2006

    TSUEN WAN HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT LTD. v. LAU HO PO AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TSUEN WAN HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT LTD. v. LAU HO PO AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2654/2005

    The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that $54,000 per month was the reasonable market letting value for the premises during the trespass period and awarded mesne profits for 151 days calculated as $54,000×12×151/365 = HK$268,076.71, with interest at judgment rate and costs to be taxed if not agreed.

  • 11 Aug 2004

    AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HOCK KIM THYE (MACHINERY) LTD

    Citation
    AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HOCK KIM THYE (MACHINERY) LTD
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT26/2004

    Respondent's opposition was dismissed because the landlord's correspondence amounted to reminders rather than statutory warning letters required by s.119E(1)(d), and the non-statutory grounds (repairs complaints and alleged unreasonable rent) did not justify refusal. The Tribunal found defects in the applicant's valuation methodology (use of older comparables, insufficient comparables, inappropriate time adjustments) and revised the valuation. On the evidence the Tribunal granted a new two-year tenancy from 1 March 2004 and fixed rent at HK$105,000 per month, with a deposit of HK$210,000; par…

  • 6 Jul 2004

    HAR BOON CHER v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD

    Citation
    HAR BOON CHER v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT10/2004

    The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's redevelopment intention as sufficiently credible to justify curtailing the previous two-year terms but found it unfair to require the five applicants to vacate earlier than the ground floor tenants; accordingly tenancies were fixed from 1 February 2004 up to 31 July 2005, market rents for LDNT 8/2004 and LDNT 10/2004 were determined by adjusted comparables at HK$14,000 and HK$10,000 per month respectively (exclusive of government rent, management fee and rates), and the Tribunal declined to adjudicate on management fee quantum.

  • 6 Jul 2004

    INA MUELLER v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD

    Citation
    INA MUELLER v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT5/2004

    The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent's redevelopment intention was credible but not sufficiently compelling to require the five applicants to vacate earlier than the ground-floor tenants; accordingly a limited shorter term was justified but the minimum term must run until 31 July 2005. Market rents for LDNT 8 and LDNT 10 were determined by adjusted comparables from the Rating & Valuation schedule yielding $14,000 and $10,000 per month respectively. Management fee disputes fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and are to be resolved by owners/management processes.

  • 6 Jul 2004

    BRAD SCHADEWITZ v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD

    Citation
    BRAD SCHADEWITZ v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT14/2004

    The Tribunal accepted the respondent's redevelopment intention as sufficiently real to justify shortening tenancies but found it unfair to require applicants to vacate earlier than the earliest effective reclaimable possession date for the ground floor units; accordingly, all five applications were granted one-year-plus extensions to 31 July 2005 effective from 1 February 2004, rents for LDNT 8/2004 and LDNT 10/2004 were fixed at HKD 14,000 and HKD 10,000 per month respectively (exclusive of management fee, rates and government rent), other tenancy terms remain, and each party bears their own…

  • 6 Jul 2004

    ANDREW KEITH AND RODERICK MURRAY v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD

    Citation
    ANDREW KEITH AND RODERICK MURRAY v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT8/2004

    The Tribunal accepted the respondent's redevelopment intention as sufficiently genuine to justify departing from two-year tenancies but, given the existence of ground-floor tenancies that could only be effectively determined in July 2005, set a minimum tenancy term to 31 July 2005 (effective from 1 Feb 2004). Market rent was calculated using Rating and Valuation Department comparables with deductions and adjustments for parking, management fee, rates and chattels, producing monthly rents of HKD 14,000 for LDNT 8/2004 and HKD 10,000 for LDNT 10/2004. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate managem…

  • 16 Jun 2004

    何永鴻 v. 偉福置業有限公司

    Citation
    何永鴻 v. 偉福置業有限公司
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT166/2003

    On review the Tribunal rejected the Applicant's proposed changes to adjustments for Age/Condition, Quantum and Building Entrance but accepted that the exceptionally high management fee warranted an adjustment to exclusive rent; the Tribunal reduced the estimated exclusive rent by 20% (from the previously determined figure) to HKD 12,960 and set the gross rent inclusive of management fee at HKD 17,100 plus applicable Government rates; the deposit was retained at two months and there was no order as to costs.

  • 15 Dec 2003

    PAINTER, ALLAN DAVID v. FOOK SHING ENTERPRISES LTD

    Citation
    PAINTER, ALLAN DAVID v. FOOK SHING ENTERPRISES LTD
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT102/2003

    The Tribunal fixed rent by averaging adjusted unit rents from objectively comparable properties after rejecting unsupported inferences (internal condition/decoration cost) and applying limited, evidence-based adjustments (including a 7‑day rent‑free adjustment), resulting in a fair market rent of HK$21,000 per month inclusive of rates and management fee and the grant of a two‑year tenancy commencing 1 July 2003.