Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sub‑letting

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2018

ELIAS NEIL DAVID AND ANOTHER v. CHENG SUI CHU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1567
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2148/2016

The court held the sub-lease valid (no forfeiture or effective early termination) so plaintiffs were not trespassers; the plaintiffs lawfully removed tenant-funded fences as tenant's fixtures; the defendants committed private nuisance by hanging dead fish (producing offensive sight and smell for about a month) and by placing and applying buckets of excreta/fertiliser (causing a few days of noxious smell); these interferences were sufficiently serious to be actionable; damages of HKD 40,000 awarded to plaintiffs; counterclaim dismissed; aggravated damages not awarded for lack of pleading and e…
22 Jul 2009

FONFAIR CO LTD v. FULL CREATION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FONFAIR CO LTD v. FULL CREATION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA835/2009

Mega Yield validly exercised the Option and entered the MY Lease on 12 September 2008 such that the Lease with Full Creation was terminated and Fonfair was entitled to vacant possession from 20 September 2008; Fonfair's re‑entry on 29 May 2009 was lawful; Full Creation's counterclaim for specific performance and On Kee's claims were dismissed; Fonfair awarded mesne profits netting $210,000 with indemnity issue against Mega Yield adjourned sine die.
9 Apr 2008

TOP TALENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TOP SYSTEM INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

TOP TALENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TOP SYSTEM INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2098/2006

The defendant breached the tenancy by failing to pay two quarters of government rates, failing to pay contractual interest, unlawfully parting with possession of parts of the premises to other corporations, and refusing landlord access to install a flushing-water meter; these breaches justified forfeiture and refusal of relief against forfeiture and refusal of the renewal option; plaintiff entitled to possession, assessed mesne profits and interest and costs as awarded.
12 Oct 1988

FUNG JUN YUEN AND ANOTHER v. FONG WING HAY t/a ARTLAND CARPETS AND ANOTHER

Citation

FUNG JUN YUEN AND ANOTHER v. FONG WING HAY t/a ARTLAND CARPETS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4571/1987

Court awarded mesne profits for the period from 20 July 1987 to 31 October 1987 at a market rental of $11,000 per month (total $37,258.06) because mesne profits are payable irrespective of ultimate net loss and the $11,000 offer in July 1987 represented the correct market rate; claims for bailiff and execution disbursements are execution costs under the final judgment and cannot also be recovered as damages; claims for lock replacement and sealing of window failed for lack of causal evidence and remoteness.
13 Feb 1984

TAN HOCK KENG AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG TAT CHIU also known as TOM YOUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

TAN HOCK KENG AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG TAT CHIU also known as TOM YOUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA981/1983

Res judicata and waiver only applied to the specific sub‑letting to HAECO; the subsequent letting to Michael Ainslie was a new breach not waived; the tenancy remained a 'continuing' tenancy under s.52; the court was entitled to lift the veil of PACIFIC as a sham to treat the letting to Ainslie as by Tom Young; s.53(2)(h) gives an independent right to possession which was not waived in 1981; accordingly judgment for the applicant for possession and mesne profits was warranted.
11 Nov 1983

KWOK WAI SAN v. CHUNG KIT CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

KWOK WAI SAN v. CHUNG KIT CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/1983

The judge's order granting possession of part of the premises against sub‑tenants while dismissing the claim against the principal tenant was inconsistent and unenforceable because s.53(4)(a) requires the tenant's willingness to remain in possession of the remainder to be present and recorded; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order is set aside and the consolidated applications are remitted for a new trial.
24 Feb 1982

POON SHU AND ANOTHER v. SO TSUI-SIM AND OTHERS

Citation

POON SHU AND ANOTHER v. SO TSUI-SIM AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ15109/1981

The District Judge set aside the earlier judgment because the plaintiffs' Rule 22 affidavit and exhibits were inadequate and ambiguous and because the premises may be governed by Part IV of Cap.7, such that the District Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction; consequently the appropriate remedy was to transfer the action to the High Court.
18 Nov 1980

SO YUET-WAH v. WONG (OR WANG) TEH-AI

Citation

SO YUET-WAH v. WONG (OR WANG) TEH-AI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV136/1980

The Court held the letter written in the plaintiff's name, authored by a friend who was authorised to obtain a rent increase, constituted consent/representation that the plaintiff accepted the sub‑letting; consequently the plaintiff was estopped from relying on the sub‑lettings as a ground for possession under s.53(2)(e), and the appeal was allowed.
27 May 1980

CHAN NAM v. POON SIU-PING

Citation

CHAN NAM v. POON SIU-PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV3/1980

Where a landlord has by conduct or acquiescence waived a tenant's breach of a statutory requirement for written consent to sub-let, the landlord cannot rely on s.53(2)(e) to obtain possession; the appeal is allowed on that basis.
31 Oct 1947

TADPOLE WONG v. A.B.C. COMMERCIAL SERVICE

Citation

TADPOLE WONG v. A.B.C. COMMERCIAL SERVICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP768/1946

The Court held the Tribunal did not err: the decision to refuse discovery was a judicial exercise of discretion because the application was broad and unnecessary to decide the issue; therefore the Tribunal's refusal to order production of the agency and general accounts was upheld.