Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Revocation of licence

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2014

INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE (HONG KONG BRANCH) v. ISMAIL KAMEL ISMAIL HASSAN ISMAIL AND OTHERS

Citation

INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE (HONG KONG BRANCH) v. ISMAIL KAMEL ISMAIL HASSAN ISMAIL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA271/2014

On an ex parte application the court granted an injunction because ISS, the lessee with undisputed title and exclusive possession, was entitled to revoke any licence to occupy the premises and the defendants who refused to leave were thereby trespassers; constitutional rights of assembly and expression do not permit occupying private premises against the lessee's rights.
31 Dec 2013

CHAU SEN KIN alias CHOW SIN KIN v. THE OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAU SEN KIN alias CHOW SIN KIN v. THE OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP855/2013

2nd defendant occupied under a bare licence; proprietary estoppel not established because no assurances or encouragement by the owners and detriment was not such as to make it inequitable to revoke; the bare licence was revoked by letter dated 22 November 2011 and plaintiff entitled to possession; no trial required under O.113.
29 Jan 2008

HONG KONG FOREX INVESTMENT LTD v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

HONG KONG FOREX INVESTMENT LTD v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV26/2008

The Vice‑President held that the Appeals Tribunal had power under section 219(1)(i) SFO to stay the revocation and to impose an interim suspension on terms; the order was a lawful exercise of discretion and there were no grounds to interfere, so the last‑minute application was dismissed.
28 Jan 2008

RISEWAY PROPERTIES LTD v. STAR RIVER IMITATION ORNAMENTS LTD

Citation

RISEWAY PROPERTIES LTD v. STAR RIVER IMITATION ORNAMENTS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6789/2004

The licence granted to Riseway was a sole and exclusive licence over the external wall granted in conjunction with the sale and thus was a licence coupled with an interest and irrevocable; the remaining signboard was within the licensed area and must be removed; Riseway could sue to vindicate its exclusive licence rights (including by trespass remedy); Riseway failed to prove quantifiable loss for the removed signboards so no damages awarded; Star River's counterclaim to revoke the licence fails; costs awarded to Riseway.
29 Nov 2006

LEE YUK LAN v. LEE CHE TAK AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE YUK LAN v. LEE CHE TAK AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2787/2002

Even if the plaintiff had no proprietary tenancy, the 2nd defendant occupied the premises as a gratuitous licensee by the plaintiff's consent; as such he could not claim adverse possession and was not liable for mesne profits absent revocation and unjustified holdover; the court therefore ordered the 2nd defendant to vacate within a reasonable time, denied mesne profits, and awarded the 2nd defendant half the costs (order nisi).
14 May 2004

HOVER BASE INVESTMENTS LTD v. BEST CONCEPT MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HOVER BASE INVESTMENTS LTD v. BEST CONCEPT MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA967/2004

Best held only a contractual licence, with no proprietary or equitable interest arising from the management agreement or alleged improvements; damages are an adequate remedy for Best; applying the American Cyanamid criteria and assessing the balance of convenience, the court continued the interlocutory injunction in favour of Hover Base and reserved costs.
9 Apr 2002

MING HSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. MING SHIU CHUNG

Citation

MING HSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. MING SHIU CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA672/1995

Court found on balance of probabilities that an oral contractual licence existed between the plaintiff (through Lawrence) and the defendants on the terms of the Chinese Memorandum; the licence was terminated effective 19 January 1995; defendants liable to pay licence fees for period up to 19 January 1995 and mesne profits thereafter until possession recovered; specified sums awarded and costs ordered.
9 Apr 2002

MING HSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. MING SHIU TONG

Citation

MING HSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. MING SHIU TONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA671/1995

The court found on balance that the brothers present at the May 1993 meeting agreed the terms in the Chinese Memorandum and understood Lawrence acted in his capacity as director of the plaintiff; that created a contractual (gratuitous) licence enforceable by the plaintiff; the licence was valid until terminated by HWG's letter of 11 January 1995 taking effect 19 January 1995; defendants liable for $800/day for occupation beyond free periods and for mesne profits from 20 January to 29 March 1995.
20 Feb 2002

NG, Wilson Ching Hung and Another v. WONG Yuk kuen Florence and Others

Citation

NG, Wilson Ching Hung and Another v. WONG Yuk kuen Florence and Others
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM392/1999

The licence granted by the First Owner for the siting of the water meters was not a bare licence revocable at will but effectively runs with the land; the water meters and attached pipes are fixtures/common parts under the Deed of Mutual Covenant and the applicants took title subject to that licence, therefore there were no grounds to order removal, relocation, rent or damages and the review is dismissed.
27 Sept 1999

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV288/1998

The 1961 communications did not create proprietary rights or an irrevocable licence; residents remained licensees under occupation permits governed by the Resettlement Ordinance and those permits were validly terminable on notice; there was no unconscionable encouragement or legally enforceable promise that prevented revocation or entitled residents to damages, hence the Housing Authority's notices were valid and the appeals must be dismissed.