Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Rent arrears

  • 15 May 2026

    BENRONA HOLDINGS LTD及另一人 對 張志超

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 814
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2520/2023

    Defendant became a trespasser from 16 March 2023 for remaining in the premises after expiry of the tenancy; mesne profits are payable at the contractual rent of HK$18,500 per month from 16 March 2023; plaintiffs did not accept a binding extension to 15 December 2023 and any purported partial acceptance in the 12/5/2023 correspondence does not create a binding agreement; deposit refundable only upon delivery of vacant possession and full payment, which conditions are unmet; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to plaintiffs on party-and-party basis.

  • 15 May 2026

    張莉 對 KO KA YUE

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2834
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSA3/2026

    Leave to appeal was granted in part because the applicant demonstrated arguable errors of law or principle in the Tribunal's handling of specific items (items 5,6,8,12) regarding whether the tenant could discharge repair obligations by the least onerous method and in the assessment of repair duration and rent loss (items 14 and 15) including responsibility for rent during key transit; all other factual findings were not shown to be plainly wrong and leave was refused for those items; costs to follow the appeal outcome.

  • 4 May 2026

    ARORA TANYA v. SOJOBI ADEBAYO OLATUNBOSUN

    Citation
    [2026] HKLdT 28
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD174/2026

    The Tribunal found the Applicant had a valid cause of action under the tenancy agreement due to the Respondent's rent default, the Respondent failed to prove a binding agreement to delay payment, the costs sought represented filing fees of $365 and were reasonable, and no error of law was shown such that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; therefore leave to appeal was dismissed.

  • 27 Mar 2026

    楊曉虹 v. BALLANI, BIPIN KISHINCHAND

    Citation
    [2026] HKLdT 16
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD181/2026

    The review is dismissed because the misnomer in the Notice was a genuine, immaterial mistake that did not mislead the respondent or cause prejudice and was properly corrected; parallel Small Claims proceedings did not prevent the Tribunal from deciding possession and arrears; allegations of trespass/theft fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction; and the tenant’s deposit claim was unsustainable in light of antecedent breach and the tenancy terms permitting deduction — therefore the original judgment ordering vacant possession and arrears stands and the review fails.

  • 23 Mar 2026

    宏迪投資(集團)有限公司 對 JULY HK LTD

    Citation
    [2026] HKLdT 17
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE1715/2025

    The conditional assignment was ineffective because the condition precedent (cheques being honoured) failed; the cheque dishonours constituted a fundamental breach so the surrender was rescinded and landlord's remedies revived; related-company arrangements supported treating the scheme as an attempt to evade obligations; the respondent's out-of-time appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success or other reason for indulgence under the governing rules, so leave and a stay were refused.

  • 26 Jan 2026

    HUNG YING ESTATES LTD v. MICHAELS MARIANNE NANNETTE

    Citation
    [2026] HKLdT 5
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD1452/2025

    The Tribunal held that the tenant's obligation to pay rent is independent of the landlord's alleged breaches; the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's counterclaims for damages or set‑offs in this possession proceeding; the Respondent had unilaterally abated rent while remaining in occupation, arrears therefore existed, the director who commenced proceedings had authority to act for the corporate landlord, and accordingly the original order for possession and payment of arrears and mesne profits was upheld and the review and stay applications were dismissed.

  • 5 Nov 2025

    KWOK WING KIT 對 JULY LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKLdT 68
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE998/2025

    The proposed respondent has no legal privity with the applicant and any subletting cannot defeat the landlord's right to repossess on termination of the head lease; the evidence for a valid sublease was inadequate (unstamped), the relationship between respondent and proposed respondent suggested an attempt to evade liabilities, and statutory remedies did not preclude enforcement. Therefore there was no basis to join the proposed respondent or to stay execution of the possession order.

  • 16 Oct 2025

    施姍姍 對 薈娛國際有限公司

    Citation
    [2025] HKLdT 62
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE609/2025

    Refusal of out‑of‑time leave: the application was filed over 40 days late without reasonable explanation; given the seriousness of the delay the respondent must show a real prospect of success and it failed to do so because the tribunal correctly found (i) tenant vacated and abandoned the lease, (ii) landlord had no legal duty to remedy third‑party noise in the circumstances, and (iii) the proposed statutory arguments were misconceived or inapplicable; therefore leave to appeal was refused.

  • 8 Oct 2025

    LIP FAI HOI v. SOUTHEAST FOODS LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKLdT 58
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE1007/2025

    Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent’s case lacked a reasonable prospect of success given serial and last‑minute defaults, the tenancy clause excluding landlord liability, and binding authority that rent covenants are independent and s.21F(1A) limits relief for repeat defaulters; accordingly the writ of possession was not set aside.

  • 17 Sept 2025

    KWOK WING KIT 對 JULY LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKLdT 52
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE998/2025

    The tribunal found the lease unambiguously allocated responsibility for repairs to the tenant, evidence (including statutory nuisance notice and communications) established a breach and prior arrears meant the tenant was not entitled to a second s.21F relief; the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reasons, therefore leave to appeal was refused and the possession order and monetary orders were upheld; no stay was granted.