Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rent control

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 1993

CHEN CHI WAI AND OTHERS v. WONG TAK WOON

Citation

CHEN CHI WAI AND OTHERS v. WONG TAK WOON
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDDB15/1992

Protected tenants occupying domestic pre‑war premises under Part I of Cap.7 are entitled to compensation under s7 Cap.337 measured by the tenant's interest (profit rent) plus disturbance, subject to the cap of Incremental Value under s8 Cap.337; premises held to be business premises at the relevant time are excluded and cannot claim; Section 38 Cap.7 does not apply to Cap.337 proceedings, and where tenants have positively established occupation awards stand.
30 Jan 1981

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. HO YUNG-KAI

Citation

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. HO YUNG-KAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV183/1980

Appeal dismissed because the appellant failed to prove the existence of an implied term requiring vacation on termination of employment; the trial judge's factual findings that the parties did not intend such a term (the tenant was a special, generously treated case) were upheld and the officious bystander/business efficacy test did not support implication of the term.
5 Mar 1974

FUNG KWAI CHING (LANDLADY) v. YICK KIT BING (TENANT)

Citation

FUNG KWAI CHING (LANDLADY) v. YICK KIT BING (TENANT)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ190/1973

Because the respondent served an unqualified counter-notice thereby accepting the notice to quit as valid and the applicant acted on that acceptance to pursue the application, the respondent is estopped/has waived the right to challenge the notice's validity and cannot now do so; therefore the notice is treated as valid and the application may proceed.
24 Sept 1973

CHEUNG WONG OI CHU v. CHOI YICK MING AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG WONG OI CHU v. CHOI YICK MING AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ530/1972

The Court held that Part II must be given a liberal remedial construction: sub‑tenants of premises affected by a notice to quit have locus standi to serve counter‑notices, be joined and be heard; where a notice to quit under s54(2) is served the court must consider hardship of tenant and joined sub‑tenants under s54(7); and where a superior tenancy is terminated by notice or order and sub‑tenants were not bound by posting or joined, a new tenancy may arise by operation of law under the proviso to s54(1)(d), thereby affording statutory protection to sub‑tenants.
5 Jul 1973

CAPITAL LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. SE MONG-KAI

Citation

CAPITAL LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. SE MONG-KAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/1973

Because the Ordinance requires delivery of 'vacant possession' to terminate a protected tenancy, and that term means actual physical surrender of an empty premises, the later written tenancy agreements did not amount to delivery of vacant possession or surrender by operation of law; accordingly the appellant remained a protected tenant and the possession order against her was set aside.
24 Jul 1972

TAM YAN v. LEE CHOR LEUNG t/a LEUNG KEE

Citation

TAM YAN v. LEE CHOR LEUNG t/a LEUNG KEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA157/1972

The Defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises were a domestic tenancy as at 5 June 1970. Unchallenged evidence (regular rent collection testimony, business registration at the relevant date, and a business sign) established business use at the material date; therefore the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance did not protect the Defendant and the Plaintiff was entitled to possession and mesne profits.
31 Jul 1971

HULTUCKTONG CO LTD v. YEUNG CHIM FU

Citation

HULTUCKTONG CO LTD v. YEUNG CHIM FU
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1/1970

Although the court accepted the assessor's view that $360 per month was a fair increase, the certificate setting rent at $345 per month was not shown to be 'manifestly unfair or unreasonable' under the statutory standard, and therefore the appeal was dismissed and the Commissioner's certificate upheld.
29 Dec 1947

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR EXECUTING THE OFFICE OF LORD HIGH ADMIRAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM v. WILLIAM BENEDICTO

Citation

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR EXECUTING THE OFFICE OF LORD HIGH ADMIRAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM v. WILLIAM BENEDICTO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA179/1947

The court held that the defendant was not entitled to protection under the Landlord & Tenant Ordinance, 1947 because the tenancy was under the Admiralty acting as Crown; accordingly the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for possession and costs.