Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use and occupation

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2024

YAN MEI and YAN DONG the Joint and Several Administrators of the Estate of FONG LAP CHUNG GEORGE, Deceased AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAP SHAN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3464
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1562/2022

The court granted interim payments in part because the claim for possession satisfied O 29 r 12(b)'s first precondition and a provisional view of the evidence supported that the plaintiffs would be liable for mortgage repayments and rates/Government rent during the action; accordingly the court ordered payment of the calculated shortfalls ($95,983 and $98,770) and periodic monthly payments ($45,000) and ongoing quarterly rates payments as just and necessary to prevent prejudice to the defendant pending final determination.
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.
10 Nov 2008

SAR DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. WORLDEX STONE CLADDING ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

SAR DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. WORLDEX STONE CLADDING ENGINEERING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2193/2007

Because the defendant admitted occupation and agreed a monthly rent of $4,560, and the defendant's counterclaim did not plead or prove damages exceeding the plaintiff's claim, the court granted an interim payment of $95,760 with specified interest and ordered monthly payments of $4,560 until trial or further order; claims for rates were deferred because areas were disputed; no order as to costs.
3 Aug 2007

RIKON LTD v. WINWAY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

RIKON LTD v. WINWAY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2342/2006

On the balance of the available affidavit evidence and pleadings the Court found the Plaintiff to be landlord and the 2nd Defendant to be occupier who had previously paid HK$32,624.63 per month; there was no pleaded set‑off or counterclaim, and therefore an interim payment was necessary to protect the landlord's entitlement. The Court ordered interim payments of HK$32,624.63 per month from 15 November 2006 and a lump sum of HK$293,621.67 for 16 November 2006 to 15 August 2007, payable within 21 days, with subsequent monthly payments on the 15th of each month.
6 Jul 2004

MAXON INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. SINO LEADER (ASIA) LTD

Citation

MAXON INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. SINO LEADER (ASIA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2332/2003

The defendant was found to have sufficient present control and use of the premises (locked gate, staff, assertions of possession and failure to deliver possession) such that the second pre-condition of Order 29 r 12(b) was satisfied; consequently interim payment was justified, the defendant's counterclaim did not show sufficient strength to reduce payment, and the appeal was dismissed with specified interim payment orders.
30 Jul 2001

AMBRIDGE INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LEXCON INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

AMBRIDGE INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LEXCON INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9743/2000

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed because the short delay was unexplained and the proposed appeal lacked merit: plaintiff adduced undisputed evidence supporting the monthly interim payment sums and the defendant's counterclaim was unparticularised and unsupported; defendant treated the tenancy as subsisting and thus remained liable for use and occupation payments.
20 Jul 2001

YU TAI HING CO. LTD. v. SOLAR LIGHT INVESTMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

YU TAI HING CO. LTD. v. SOLAR LIGHT INVESTMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6681/1998

The interim payment order was properly made because the 8th defendant had notice of the plaintiff's possession order and there was no evidence the plaintiff had consented or acquiesced to the tenancy; payment of rent to the mortgagor after notice did not defeat the plaintiff's right to an interim payment, so the appeal failed.
1 May 1996

LEE SHU MAN v. CHU WING HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SHU MAN v. CHU WING HING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV52/1996

The appeal is allowed and the interim payment order set aside because it was not plain the defendant would be liable at trial to pay sums for use and occupation: if defendant obtained specific performance he would not be liable for use and occupation and interest on the unpaid purchase price is not money for use and occupation, so O.29 r.12(b) did not justify the interim order.
18 Nov 1988

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEOFFERY WATSON

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEOFFERY WATSON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3161/1988

Because the defendant proved he did not actually receive the writ before judgment was entered, service by post was ineffective and the default judgment of 27 May 1988 was irregular and must be set aside ex debito justitiae; additionally, if merits had been required, the correct test for setting aside a regularly obtained judgment is that the defendant's defence must have a real prospect of success (not merely a good arguable defence).