Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy determination

Legal area

Court

8 Jan 2014

UNIVERSAL CORPORATION (COLOR & CHEMICAL) LTD v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LEUNG SHU MING also known as LEUNG SHU MING, DECEASED

Citation

UNIVERSAL CORPORATION (COLOR & CHEMICAL) LTD v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LEUNG SHU MING also known as LEUNG SHU MING, DECEASED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP733/2013

The plaintiff's occupation after the last rent payment in January 1984 constituted exclusive factual possession and the requisite intention to possess; the oral tenancy was deemed determined at the end of that period so possession became adverse and, having continued for over 20 years, the defendant's title was extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance, entitling the plaintiff to a declaration of adverse possession.
13 Jun 1985

ULRICH HALDEMANN v. PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ULRICH HALDEMANN v. PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1658/1984

The dismissal was lawful: the decisive authority to dismiss resided with Head Office and the alleged oral extension by the local manager did not create enforceable contractual rights due to absence of consideration and lack of authority to bind the company; however the claimant had vested entitlements to two months' leave pay and a return airfare which must be paid; the tenancy contained an implied term that Panalpina would only pay the inflated rent while the claimant remained its employee, so Panalpina validly determined the tenancy on employment termination.
20 Oct 1981

HOOVERTON INVESTMENTS LTD v. NG KAI TAI

Citation

HOOVERTON INVESTMENTS LTD v. NG KAI TAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8447/1980

Court found a tenancy existed of the defined 29ft by 2ft premises; there was no evidence of an implied assignment so defendant is a monthly tenant; payment of $2,200 to the prior landlord was admitted and plaintiff failed to discharge the statutory onus under s.116(2)(b) and (3) to prove it was not key money; consequently Part IV was not excluded, defendant entitled to statutory protection and judgment was entered for the defendant with related reliefs.
31 Oct 1979

CHIU KWOK LIM AND OTHERS v. CHIU BUTT YORK AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHIU KWOK LIM AND OTHERS v. CHIU BUTT YORK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA810/1979

The court found on the evidence that the 24 December 1964 agreement continued in force, the 1st defendant held as lessee from 1 January 1965 under that agreement, the tenancy became yearly after 31 December 1970 and is terminable by not more than one year's notice; the alleged representation was not made and proprietary estoppel did not arise; accordingly plaintiffs entitled to declaratory relief and judgment for arrears and costs.
5 Jul 1977

LAI MAI YU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

LAI MAI YU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2474/1976

Clause 4(h) permitted the Crown to give three months' notice terminating the tenancy on any date; the notice to quit served was valid and effective, the plaintiff did not obtain a new tenancy by payment of rent after valid notice because there was no mutual agreement to create a new tenancy, and the Crown Land Ordinance s.6 notices were valid; consequently the plaintiff's claims fail and the defendant's counterclaim succeeds except as to the bank bond and limited findings on licence period.
18 Nov 1971

CHIU CHING WAN v. LUI FUK KAM

Citation

CHIU CHING WAN v. LUI FUK KAM
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ564/1971

On the balance of probabilities the tenancy was a monthly tenancy determined by the undisputed six months notice to quit; tenant liable for arrears from September 1970, but the $880 deposit was properly set off because the landlord had resumed possession prior to the writ, producing judgment for the landlord for the balance of arrears.

Hong Kong Case Law

UNIVERSAL CORPORATION (COLOR & CHEMICAL) LTD v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LEUNG SHU MING also known as LEUNG SHU MING, DECEASED

ULRICH HALDEMANN v. PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD

HOOVERTON INVESTMENTS LTD v. NG KAI TAI

CHIU KWOK LIM AND OTHERS v. CHIU BUTT YORK AND ANOTHER

LAI MAI YU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

CHIU CHING WAN v. LUI FUK KAM