Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rental arrears

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2025

吳澤源對劉建華

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 35
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD551/2025

The Tribunal found no concluded renewal: the tenant's request for a rent-free week was a counter-offer that terminated the landlord's earlier proposal, subsequent communications were ambiguous or silent and did not amount to acceptance, therefore the fixed-term tenancy expired on 5 February 2025 and the landlord validly notified repossession; the respondent's proposed appeal had no real prospect of success so leave was refused and no stay granted.
16 Jun 2020

HECNY TRANSPORTATION LTD v. L HOLDING LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1256
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2004/2019

Summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff because the defendant failed to raise any arguable defence or triable issue: the alleged representation was found inherently improbable and lacked contemporaneous support; no particulars or figures were pleaded to support equitable set-off; frustration was not established because an alternative entrance could be reopened and the interference did not defeat the tenancy for the unexpired term; accordingly the defendant remained liable for arrears until return of possession and the plaintiff was entitled to assessment for the short remaining term.
29 May 2018

葉瑋敬對梁啟明

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 37
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD663/2018

The lease was ambiguous as to term; applying contra proferentem against the party who prepared the document and considering surrounding facts, the tribunal concluded the lease was for two years from 1 January 2016 to 30 December 2017, and ordered delivery of vacant possession, payment of rent from 1 May 2018 until delivery at HK$8,000 per month, and costs of HK$365.
11 Feb 2014

CHAN KA MING v. SZE KUNG YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KA MING v. SZE KUNG YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV158/2013

The Court upheld the deputy judge: no implied term preventing Hua Ning from suing was warranted because it was unnecessary or would contradict express terms; the deputy judge's factual findings on removal of equipment and proper conduct of the auction were open to him and not plainly wrong; proposed amendments to pleadings were unarguable; appeals dismissed with costs.
28 Jun 2013

HUA NING INDUSTRIES LTD v. BEST LEADER ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

HUA NING INDUSTRIES LTD v. BEST LEADER ENGINEERING LTD<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1801/2008

The court rejected defendants' implied term and assignment defences, accepted plaintiffs' evidence that no valuable equipment was removed and that the auction was conducted fairly, found no evidence of prejudice to guarantors or diminution of security value and denied amendment raising new cheque defences; judgment entered for Hua Ning for $28,537,236 and for Mr Chan against Mr Sze and Best Leader for $3,569,551.23 with specified interest and costs orders.
16 Apr 2012

悅勝投資有限公司對屈浩輝

Citation

悅勝投資有限公司對屈浩輝
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2739/2011

The review application was dismissed because the facts and evidence were identical to LDPE 1147/2011 and the Tribunal applied the same reasoning; consequently the Tribunal's original decision of 10 February 2012 was maintained and no order for costs was made.
5 Oct 2007

RIGHT STAR INVESTMENT CO LTD v. GRAND PALACE LTD

Citation

RIGHT STAR INVESTMENT CO LTD v. GRAND PALACE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW908/2005

Grand Palace failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: the 1996 tenancy agreements and the 1 April 1997 rent reduction and corroborating audited accounts supported Right Star's claim; alternatively, even accepting Grand Palace's case on commencement dates, a shortfall of HK$1,861,500 remained under the 1998 tenancy. Therefore a winding up order was appropriate and granted, with costs to the petitioner.
2 May 2007

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE v. YAU CHUANG YAU

Citation

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE v. YAU CHUANG YAU
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4548/2002

The court accepted the government valuer's open‑market rental of $3,500 per month for 1 January 2000–28 November 2001 and assessed damages for wrongful occupation at $80,266.67; interest to be calculated from date of writ at half judgment rate until judgment and at judgment rate thereafter; costs to plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.
14 Mar 2006

HO CHUNG YIN, ANDREW AND ANOTHER v. SAM KEE GARDEN (HK) LTD

Citation

HO CHUNG YIN, ANDREW AND ANOTHER v. SAM KEE GARDEN (HK) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4155/2005

Court accepted plaintiffs' evidence of unpaid rent, reasonable efforts to relet and assessed loss as rent at $43,740 per month for 13 months plus rental shortfall for five months after re-letting, totaling $663,320 less deposit $87,480, leaving assessed damages of $575,840, with interest and costs as ordered.
24 Mar 2005

HALESITE LTD v. NG SAI ON, IVAN

Citation

HALESITE LTD v. NG SAI ON, IVAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6313/2003

Defendant breached the tenancy and is liable to pay HKD 430,534.98 representing unpaid rent and mesne profits plus rates and management charges less sums received from reletting; plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate; interest awarded as ordered; costs to plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.