Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certificate of primary user

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 1998

PARK KIT INVESTMENT LTD. v. CHEUNG WAN PING

Citation

PARK KIT INVESTMENT LTD. v. CHEUNG WAN PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5349/1998

Leave was granted because the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay (awaiting the Certificate of Primary User applied for before the callover), the Master Cannon order was properly construed as permitting a subsequent affirmation, and the defendant would not be prejudiced since a reply period and a hearing date remained available; accordingly the order of Master Jones was set aside and retrospective leave granted.
25 Jul 1984

WONG HONG v. CHAN LAI CHUN

Citation

WONG HONG v. CHAN LAI CHUN
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA296/1984

On the totality of evidence—inspection showing machinery, production in progress, extensive storage of goods, business registration at the address, and the landlord's consistent observations—the Tribunal held the primary user was non-domestic and therefore the tenancy is non-domestic; subsequent removal of goods after inspection did not change that classification.
22 Mar 1984

MEE SUN CHEONG v. SUN KEE

Citation

MEE SUN CHEONG v. SUN KEE
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA8/1984

The Commissioner issued the Part I Certificate without jurisdiction because the respondent was a sub-tenant and s7A expressly excludes sub-tenants and premises subject to sub-tenancy from applying; accordingly the Certificate is a nullity and must be quashed. Although the Tribunal would, on the evidence, regard the primary user as domestic, it will not make a binding order on user when the Commissioner's certificate was issued without jurisdiction.
20 May 1983

BULLSTOCK LTD v. YEUNG KAM FOOK

Citation

BULLSTOCK LTD v. YEUNG KAM FOOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9090/1982

The court found on the evidence, corroborated by the Certificate of Primary User and photographs, that the premises were primarily used for business at the date of the notice; the notice served and posted under Part V therefore validly terminated the tenancy on expiry and entitled the plaintiff to possession and mesne profits; the cockloft formed part of the tenancy and was not a separate tenancy.
12 Apr 1983

FOOK LUEN WAH DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

FOOK LUEN WAH DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA4/1983

The Commissioner's certificate that primary user was domestic, founded on inspection evidence (domestic furnishings and ten occupants), constituted prima facie proof; the appellant failed to produce contemporaneous or contradicting evidence despite opportunities (including landlord inspection rights) and thus did not rebut the certificate, so the certificate was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
19 Nov 1982

LUK PING FAI v. HO PUI HAR

Citation

LUK PING FAI v. HO PUI HAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV131/1982

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge wrongly exercised his discretion by refusing extension of time where the delay in payment arose from the defendant's solicitors' negligence and the plaintiff would not suffer irreparable prejudice; therefore the defendant must be allowed a hearing on the merits.
30 Apr 1981

HO KEE CHUN v. YEUNG CHONG KIN

Citation

HO KEE CHUN v. YEUNG CHONG KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2282/1980

On the balance of probabilities the domestic use of the rear portion was more important; the defendant and family’s credible evidence rebutted the prima facie effect of the rating certificates; therefore the primary user is domestic and the defendant is a protected tenant, so possession is refused.
24 Oct 1979

CHAN KWOK KWAN v. CHAN CHEONG WAI t/a CHAN CHEONG KEE STORE

Citation

CHAN KWOK KWAN v. CHAN CHEONG WAI t/a CHAN CHEONG KEE STORE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5598/1978

On the evidence the domestic and non‑domestic uses of the premises were of roughly equal weight; applying the authoritative principle that where uses are equal the domestic user is to be regarded as primary, the premises were held to be subject to Part II. The plaintiff therefore failed to establish entitlement to possession. The tenancy was to the defendant personally (not a firm) and the plaintiff's claim for a declaration of indemnity for prospective Crown waiver fees was refused as discretionary and speculative.
24 Sept 1971

MABEL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM SIU KAN

Citation

MABEL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM SIU KAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1664/1970

The court found the primary user to be domestic because the family lived in the premises with kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms, the office use was secondary, the Occupation Permit indicated domestic use and the Commissioner’s certificate recorded domestic primary user; therefore the tenancy is a domestic tenancy protected by the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance and the plaintiff’s claim for possession failed.
CHAN KWOK KWAN v. CHAN CHEONG WAI t/a CHAN CHEONG KEE STORE

Citation

CHAN KWOK KWAN v. CHAN CHEONG WAI t/a CHAN CHEONG KEE STORE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV91/1979

Although the legal burden to prove domestic user rests with the respondent, examining the evidence (areas, use, profits and living arrangements) shows domestic use is financially at least as important and the primary user is domestic; the trial judge reached the correct result despite applying some incorrect analytical steps, hence the appeal is dismissed.