Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy agreement

Legal area

Court

13 May 2025

BONTEX INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KAISER INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1560/2021

The Loan Agreement claim was materially distinct from the subject-matter of the main action (the Tenancy Agreement and Guarantee), did not satisfy the connection required by O.15 r.3(1), and, even if arguable, the court would exercise its discretion under O.15 r.5(2) to refuse the late, prejudicial amendment; accordingly the Amendment Summons was dismissed (save for minor typographical corrections) and the parts of D2's witness statement relating to the Loan Agreement were struck out as irrelevant.
8 Nov 2024

UNITY PROFIT LTD v. LEE CHING LAM

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2503/2017

Court found on balance that the May 2009 conversation occurred and induced reliance and substantial capital expenditure by the defendant on Lots A; proprietary estoppel therefore barred plaintiff from recovering rent/rates/mesne profits for Lots A until refund of $1,813,999.20 and assignment of 8,000 sq ft to Sino Charm; Court found tenancy did not cover Lot B and defendant failed to prove adverse possession of Lot B; ordered delivery of vacant possession of Lot B and granted declaratory relief on Lots A; nisi order as to costs.
5 Nov 2024

LEUNG KAM LIN by her next friend LEUNG WAI MAN v. CHENG MEI WA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1849
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ877/2022

The court awarded damages to restore the plaintiff to the position she would have been in absent the void tenancy: market rent for the occupation period (HK$183,470.96) less payments received (HK$28,000) = HK$155,470.96 for use and occupation, plus indemnity for unpaid utilities (HK$1,464.10) and recoverable consequential expenditure (HK$15,100.00), totaling HK$172,035.06, with interest from the date of writ at HSBC best lending rate plus 1% until judgment and judgment rate thereafter, and costs summarily assessed at HK$82,795.
26 Aug 2024

金藝企業有限公司 v. 余曉燕

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1346
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1695/2021

The Tenancy Agreement dated 15 June 2018 is valid and binding; the Defendant was not entitled to occupy the Property without consent; the Defendant must deliver vacant possession; the Defendant owes outstanding rent of HK$696,000 under the Tenancy Agreement; mesne profits assessed at HK$20,000 per month from 1 April 2020 until delivery of vacant possession; all counterclaims by the Defendant are dismissed; costs to follow the event with a costs order nisi for the Plaintiff.
21 Dec 2021

WONG LO KIN AND ANOTHER v. SUN KWONG METAL MANUFACTURER CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1602
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1813/2018

Given evolving and significant COVID-19 travel and quarantine restrictions rendering attendance from the USA impractical and the substantive dispute largely hinging on interpretation of written agreements rather than contested oral credibility, the court exercised its discretion to permit both identified witnesses to give evidence by VCF subject to specified safeguards; the late application was noted and costs of the application were ordered in the cause on a nisi basis.
18 Mar 2021

HONG KONG TREASURE INT’L LTD v. CHEUNG KIN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 565
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1193/2019

The 1st Defendant was not a director of HK Treasure on 15 October 2017 as determined in the s.42 proceedings and upheld on appeal; that determination is final and issue estops the 1st Defendant from asserting otherwise; none of the defences raised by the 1st to 3rd and 9th Defendants created a triable issue or arguable defence; therefore summary judgment entered for the plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 9th Defendants is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Oct 2020

CHOW LILY AND OTHER v. HAU SAI ON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 896
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1732/2013

The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence and documentary proof (the Tenancy Agreement and Mr Hau's letter) as authentic; found that the 2nd defendant occupied as a tenant, not as holder of a transferred possessory title; the 1st plaintiff's agency was ratified by the administrators; therefore the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs (as administrators) have superior possessory title and are entitled to vacant possession, outstanding rent and mesne profit.
22 Jan 2020

CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD v. FENG ZHIFAN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 261
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA43/2019

The application was refused because the matters advanced by the Defendant were factual disputes already considered and rejected by the Tribunal and did not raise any question of law under s.28; the specific refund argument failed because the Tribunal found the tenancy was terminated due to the Defendant's dishonoured cheque, so the refund entitlement did not apply.
25 Jul 2019

CHEUNG MAN YUEN v. CHAU WAN KAI JONAS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 991
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3353/2018

The court found the defendant's allegations were implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous steps or evidence, and amounted to an attempt to delay vacant possession; the defendant failed to establish a realistic prospect of success to set aside the regular default judgment, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the default judgment stands.
23 May 2019

FRED LEE and CHOW WAI LAN CHRISTINE, the Joint and Several Trustees in Bankruptcy of the property of HSU KIM MING, a Bankrupt v. CHUI YUK FEI

Citation

[2019] HKDC 643
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP230/2015

The defendant's application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because the delay was substantial and inexcusable, the higher 'real prospect of success' threshold applies, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any real prospect of success on his substantive grounds (claims of sole beneficial ownership by constructive trust, resulting trust or estoppel were properly rejected by the trial judge); consequently leave is refused and costs are awarded to the plaintiff.