Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rent ordinance s.29

Legal area

Court

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

HCAL83/2005

The Rent Ordinance s.29 constitutes a self-contained statutory regime governing holding over of government rent; s.46 of the Interpretation Ordinance does not confer a broader power to withdraw holding over orders made under s.29 and any setting aside of such orders before final determination is limited to the grounds specified in s.29 (notably s.29(5)); where the Commissioner honestly forms an opinion within those statutory parameters (e.g. unreasonable delay or likely irrecoverability) the court will not interfere unless the decision is perverse or outside the scope of reasonable judgment.
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

HCAL86/2005

The Rent Ordinance s.29 forms a self‑contained regime for holding over disputed government rent; the Commissioner did not have a broader power under s.46 Interpretation Ordinance to withdraw holding over orders generally because that would undermine the certainty and scheme of s.29. Cancellation before final determination is limited to the grounds specified in s.29(5). Where the Commissioner validly cancelled under s.29(5) for unreasonable delay/abuse of process (as to Best Origin and associated parties), that exercise of judgment was within his statutory discretion; where he purported to wit…
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

HCAL24/2006

The court held s.29 of the Rent Ordinance constitutes a self-contained regime governing holding over and cancellation; the Commissioner had no general power under s.46 to withdraw holding over orders and could only cancel prior orders under the limited grounds in s.29(5). The Commissioner lawfully cancelled the holding over order of Best Origin and those represented and sufficiently involved in that litigation because his subjective opinion of unreasonable delay and abuse of process was reasonably open to him; however the purported withdrawal of holding over orders affecting MTR and Chest Gai…
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

HCAL17/2006

The court held that s.29 of the Rent Ordinance creates a self-contained, certain regime governing holding over orders and their cancellation; s.46 of the Interpretation Ordinance does not give the Commissioner a general power to withdraw holding over orders granted under s.29; the Commissioner acted within s.29(5) in cancelling certain orders for abuse/unreasonable delay but where he only purported to withdraw orders under s.46 those withdrawals were ultra vires and quashed; refusals to grant new orders were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable; Chest Gain's challenge was out of time and le…
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

HCAL22/2006

The Court held that s.29 of the Rent Ordinance creates a self-contained regime governing holding over of government rent and that the Commissioner did not have a broader power under s.46 Interpretation Ordinance to withdraw holding over orders; cancellation before final determination is limited to grounds in s.29(5). Accordingly withdrawals under s.46 were ultra vires and quashed where relied upon; however where the Commissioner validly cancelled orders under s.29(5) on honest opinion of unreasonable delay/abuse of process his exercise of discretion was within legal bounds and will not be dis…
6 Oct 2006

CHEST GAIN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CHEST GAIN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL110/2005

The Rent Ordinance s.29 creates a self-contained, predictable regime governing holding over and cancellation of government rent disputes; the Commissioner did not have a broader power under s.46 Interpretation Ordinance to withdraw holding over orders generally, so purported withdrawal under s.46 was ultra vires. However s.29(5) permits cancellation in the specified circumstances (irrecoverability or unreasonable delay) and the Commissioner acted within that power in relation to appeals he could properly attribute to unreasonable delay or abuse of process; refusals to grant new holding over o…
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

HCAL23/2006

The Rent Ordinance s.29 constitutes a self‑contained regime governing holding over orders; the Commissioner does not have a general power under s.46 IGC Ordinance to withdraw such orders (withdrawal under s.46 was ultra vires). The Commissioner may, however, cancel holding over orders under the limited circumstances in s.29(5) (irrecoverability or unreasonable delay) and his bona fide exercise of that s.29(5) discretion will only be overturned if irrational. Applying these principles the court dismissed challenges in most applications where s.29(5) cancellation was lawful but quashed purporte…
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

HCAL148/2005

The Rent Ordinance s.29 constitutes a self‑contained regime governing holding over orders; the Commissioner did not possess a general power under s.46 to withdraw holding over orders and was therefore ultra vires to do so. Where the Commissioner lawfully cancelled orders under s.29(5) for unreasonable delay or risk of irrecoverability (eg. findings as to abuse of process regarding Best Origin and associated parties), those cancellations were within his statutory discretion. Applications were disposed of accordingly: orders quashing unlawful withdrawals where withdrawal (not cancellation) was…