Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy by estoppel

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2025

陳偉康對綺麗纖體美容有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 3
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1429/2024

Respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or other compelling reason for granting leave; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain respondent's counterclaim for damages unconnected to possession; tenant's obligation to pay rent is independent of alleged landlord breaches and arrears justify the possession order; stay of execution refused for lack of irreparable prejudice.
6 Nov 2024

馮國雄對張淑霞及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1778
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1948/2017

Leave to appeal refused because the applicants only challenged factual findings without identifying clear or obvious error or a reasonable prospect of success; the application was not delayed; newly raised documents were not previously disclosed and were irrelevant to issues decided; no other reason existed to permit the appeal.
31 May 2024

KWAN NGAI KUEN MAGGIE Executor of the Estate of KWAN YUK LING (Deceased) v. WONG CHING MAN

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 46
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1327/2022

Although attornment need not be preceded by an adverse claim initiated by the title paramount, the respondent failed to prove she attorned to KWC or that KWC was title paramount; consequently tenancy by estoppel binds the respondent and applicant is entitled to vacant possession, arrears and mesne profits.
2 Apr 2024

馮國雄對張淑霞及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 441
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1948/2017

Even if the plaintiff breached the government land licence, the written lease is legally effective between the plaintiff and the tenants; tenants cannot rely on lack of proprietary title to defeat contractual obligations (tenancy by estoppel); defendants failed to prove the alleged representation that the land was private and failed to prove the improvement counterclaim; accordingly plaintiff entitled to apportionment of stamp duty and to mesne profits as calculated.
7 Feb 2024

陳永發對劉世杰

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 14
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1556/2023

Default judgment was maintained and the application to set it aside was dismissed because the respondent failed to show valid service or excusable absence plus he had no real prospect of success on the merits: the lease was binding (tenancy by estoppel), the registered owner had title to land and superstructure, and the respondent's asserted factual and legal defences could not realistically succeed.
5 Feb 2024

CHEUK KIT KEI 對 MOHAMMAD, IJAZ

Citation

[2024] HKDC 177
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5919/2018

Leave to appeal refused because the appellant offered only an assertion of unfairness, failed to point to any specific error or rebut the trial judge's reasons, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; moreover tenancy by estoppel applied to uphold the plaintiff's entitlement.
3 Oct 2023

CHEUK KIT KEI 對 MOHAMMAD, IJAZ

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1371
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5919/2018

The court held that tenancy by estoppel applies notwithstanding the plaintiff's lack of formal title because the defendant was let into undisturbed possession; Yip Alice is binding and Cap.28 does not automatically deprive the plaintiff of civil remedies; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of both properties and mesne profits as calculated, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
8 May 2023

TSANG SHU WO AND ANOTHER v. PERSON UNKNOWN IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO. 2643RP IN D.D. 120, YUEN LONG, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 644
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV98/2020

The appeal fails because tenancy by estoppel cannot bind a third party occupier and because the asserted renewals of the head leases lacked the unanimous consent of the Tso's registered managers: TKK remained a registered manager who did not consent, no Secretary approval removed him, therefore the 2013 and subsequent purported leases were void and TCY could not pass better title to sub-lessees; accordingly the 2nd plaintiff was not entitled to possession.
11 Jan 2022

鄧志業對姚賽清

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 4
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD952/2021

Because the applicants' delay in seeking leave to appeal was substantial and unexplained and because the proposed appeals had no real prospect of success on the legal points raised (tenancy by estoppel, lack of evidential support for boundary/title claims, and inapplicability of the respondents' legal arguments), the Tribunal refused out‑of‑time leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant.
11 Jan 2022

鄧志業對 CHAN YU KUEN

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 4
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD953/2021

Permission to appeal out of time was refused because the applicants for extension (the respondents) filed more than 100 days late without providing a reasonable explanation for the serious delay and their proposed grounds of appeal had no real prospect of success, in particular because tenancy by estoppel and applicable statutory and case law foreclose their title/boundary arguments; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse extension and awarded costs.