Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy vs licence

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2017

HARBOUR HERO ENTERPRISES LTD v. 周濃娣

Citation

HARBOUR HERO ENTERPRISES LTD v. 周濃娣
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4969/2016

Defendant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of successfully defending the action because the plaintiff produced cogent evidence (rental receipts, rent collection testimony and a reply letter acknowledging plaintiff's ownership) that the defendant was a tenant; the reply letter constituted an acknowledgement under LO s23(1); on the evidence the defendant's bare denials and uncorroborated assertions do not carry sufficient conviction, therefore the application to set aside the default judgment must be dismissed.
15 Aug 2016

LEUNG WAI IP v. CHAN MING FAI

Citation

LEUNG WAI IP v. CHAN MING FAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ677/2014

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the judge found no tenancy existed: the defendant's pleadings affirm relationships (purchase/licence) inconsistent with an exclusive periodic tenancy, the defendant failed to plead a tenancy as required by the Rules, and a purported tenancy for an indefinite/uncertain term is void and treated as a licence so s.12(2) did not make the defendant's possession adverse.
18 Dec 2015

GLOBAL TRADING OFFSHORE (PTC) LTD v. ALL PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF WALL SHOP (ADJOINING SHOP G) ON GROUND FLOOR OF SAVOY MANSION, NO.49 CARNARVON ROAD, KOWLOON, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

GLOBAL TRADING OFFSHORE (PTC) LTD v. ALL PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF WALL SHOP<br>(ADJOINING SHOP G) ON GROUND FLOOR OF<br>SAVOY MANSION, NO.49 CARNARVON ROAD,<br>KOWLOON, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2043/2013

As a matter of law the surface of an external wall cannot be adversely possessed; on the facts the court found occupation was pursuant to a tenancy/permission evidenced by payment records and correspondence, so the 2nd defendant failed to establish adverse possession and the plaintiff is entitled to possession and mesne profits.
29 Aug 2008

RICAS PROPERTIES LTD v. ARMED FORCES TRADING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RICAS PROPERTIES LTD v. ARMED FORCES TRADING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP75/2008

Summary possession under O.113 was refused because credible, triable issues exist: it is arguable the grandson acquired possessory title by adverse possession (successive adverse occupation aggregates against the registered owner) and there is a triable issue whether the 3rd defendant occupies under a tenancy (or at least has sufficient interest to defend). Consequently the matter must proceed to full trial and be continued as if commenced by writ.
31 May 2002

WU YEE PAK v. UN FONG LEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

WU YEE PAK v. UN FONG LEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV172/2002

The Court held that the trial judge's finding of regular payments of money and farm produce constituted an acknowledgement of the registered owners' title and was inconsistent with the necessary animus possidendi for adverse possession; section 24(1)’s writing requirement does not preclude reliance on payments under section 24(2); accordingly the appellant failed to prove adverse possession and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Feb 2002

WU YEE PAK v. UN FONG LEUNG & OTHERS

Citation

WU YEE PAK v. UN FONG LEUNG & OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3773/1998

The court found the plaintiff's occupation was with the permission of D3 and their predecessors, evidenced by regular visits and payments by the plaintiff's wife, acceptance of compensation by D3 on two resumptions, and D3's payment of government rent; plaintiff failed to prove animus possidendi and therefore did not establish adverse possession, so the claim was dismissed.
20 Oct 1981

HOOVERTON INVESTMENTS LTD V. NG KAI TAI

Citation

HOOVERTON INVESTMENTS LTD V. NG KAI TAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8906/1980

The court found that the premises constituted a tenancy (not merely a licence or mere wall surface); there was no evidence of any written assignment so the defendant held as a monthly tenant at common law; the payment of $2,200 to the prior landlord was admitted and the plaintiff failed to discharge the statutory onus under s.116(3) to prove it was not key money or a premium; accordingly Part IV of the Ordinance was not excluded and the defendant was entitled to the protection of Part IV and judgment accordingly.
23 Nov 1978

LI WING-SUN v. WU MAN

Citation

LI WING-SUN v. WU MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV53/1978

The agreement was founded on unlawful occupation of Crown land and remained illegal despite subsequent statutory change; therefore the plaintiff, a permittee with no estate or transferable interest, could not enforce the agreement for rent or mesne profits and the appeal must be dismissed.
28 Jan 1947

J.P. MAHUVAWALLA v. B.R. IRANEE

Citation

J.P. MAHUVAWALLA v. B.R. IRANEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2/1946

Although appellant had exclusive possession and thus was a tenant at common law, the Proclamation contemplates tenants who fall within the defined classes (principal tenant or sub-tenant) and contemplates rent payable in money; accommodation provided as remuneration for employment (services) is not within the meaning of 'tenant' under Proclamation No.15 of 1945, therefore appellant could not claim bona-fide possession under a landlord and the eviction order must be upheld.