Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2024

CHU SYMON HIN WING CHU YUM KO DANIEL（朱蔭高）and CHU HUM HONG（朱蔭康） as managers of CHU NAM YUN (OR YUEN)（朱南園）suing on behalf of all members of CHU NAM YUN (OR YUEN)（朱南園）對潘家駿

Citation

[2024] HKDC 505
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4484/2021

The possession order was a regular order and service on the occupier was effective and known to the defendant; the defendant failed to produce credible, substantive evidence of a tenancy or of actual or ostensible authority by the alleged agent to let the land, and therefore had no real prospect of success or triable issue; the registrar’s order setting aside the possession order was wrongly made and was rescinded.
30 Jun 2021

GREEN LACONIC LTD AND OTHERS v. FAN CHIN WA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1884
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1377/2019

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because none of the proposed grounds showed a reasonable prospect of success: the judge's factual assessment (including the probative weight of the reimbursement form) fell within the permissible exercise of discretion and was not plainly wrong; the post‑judgment tenancy did not engage Order 45 r11 as it did not affect the validity of the judgment and was not a proper basis for a stay; the informal, unverified request for extension of time was rejected; costs were awarded against the Defendant and to be summarily assessed.
20 May 2021

CHINA TRAVEL LOGISTICS AND TRADING HONG KONG LTD v. CHINA TRAVEL HIP KEE GODOWN HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1427
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA693/2021

Court found there were serious issues to be tried but that damages would be an adequate remedy in principle for either party; however because the defendant had already taken steps (leasing memoranda and operational changes) that affect third parties and could not readily be reversed, the court granted limited interim relief conditional on the plaintiff's cross‑undertaking as to damages and payment for use and occupation, and imposed detailed protective measures (honour existing leasing memoranda, stakeholder account for rents collected, restrictions on interference with remaining parts and bo…
26 Mar 2021

GREEN LACONIC LTD AND OTHERS v. FAN CHIN WA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1377/2019

Summary judgment was refused because the defendant's case on a contractual licence (the Supplemental Agreement) was not so weak as to be unarguable given the parties' long and complex course of dealings and some supporting contemporaneous indicators; however, on balance of convenience the court granted an interlocutory mandatory injunction compelling delivery of vacant possession on condition plaintiffs pay HK$12,729,000 into court as security (to minimize risk of injustice), and allowed the defendant's joinder application to add the alleged beneficial owners and City Breeze because the propo…
20 Aug 2020

三乘堂對蔡成展

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 21
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE302/2019

Tribunal accepted applicant's documentary evidence and credible witness testimony that a written tenancy existed from 1 April 2012 to 30 March 2014 and that conduct thereafter gave rise at least to a monthly periodic tenancy with payments until April 2015; respondent's oral boundary and donation case was not credible and lacked contemporaneous support; respondent must deliver vacant possession and pay arrears/mesne profits from May 2015 and permission to appeal was refused because no arguable legal error or prospect of success was demonstrated.
17 Jun 2020

CHAN MIU CHEE LIBBY v. THE ESTATE OF YEE CHUNG YE, THE DECEASED

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1299
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3108/2016

The plaintiff proved exclusive factual possession and the intention to possess for the requisite period; no rent had been paid since about 1990 so the limitation period had run such that the defendant's registered title was extinguished under s17 Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 and the plaintiff thereby acquired possessory title.
14 Oct 2019

CHEA SHIU CHOW v. CHEUNG WAI KEUNG, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF CHEUNG CHIT CHIU, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1346/2012

The TA signed by the claimant was a valid and binding periodic tenancy; plaintiff failed to demonstrate the TA was a sham or otherwise vitiated and failed to prove the requisite intention to exclude the world and the owner. The SPA did not transfer any good possessory title from Wu. Consequently adverse possession was not established; claim dismissed and defendants entitled to vacant possession, mesne profits and costs.
6 Dec 2018

WONG WAI PING JADIE AND ANOTHER v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1149/2018

Insufficient information in the provided extract to state the court's operative ratio.
5 Dec 2018

FUNG YIU CHUNG v. YU KWAN TIN

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1500
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4980/2014

The court found the pleaded implied terms did not exist or were not proved: the Verification Clause related only to specified income records and Clause 2 expressly stated the seller had provided business details; there was insufficient evidence of regulatory or criminal liability; any alleged breaches were not conditions entitling rescission and, in any event, the buyer affirmed the FSPA by taking possession. Accordingly all claims and the counterclaim fail.
15 Aug 2018

MAN KAI TAK v. 梁妹 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 518
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP70/2018

The Court refused leave because the Judge’s findings that the occupation was a tenancy (supported by the 1979 written tenancy, subsequent rent payments and credibility findings) precluded a claim of adverse possession and the applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or other interest of justice; the evidence about rent payments was direct not hearsay and the appellate court will not overturn primary findings of fact and credibility absent plain error.