Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ejectment

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2016

MASTER UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MASTER UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1850/2015

The court dismissed the combined summonses. It held that the pleadings and affidavit material raised factually disputed and interwoven issues — principally whether the registered Leases were sham/fraudulent and whether D2-4 acted as alter egos or in concert to defeat earlier unregistered tenancies — which could not be resolved as pure points of law on O.14A or struck out as plainly unsustainable under O.18 r.19(1)(a). Registration under ss 3-4 LRO gives prima facie priority but does not cure an underlying transaction tainted by actual fraud; those factual issues must proceed to trial.
22 Apr 2015

CHAN HAU LING v. 劉西 AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN HAU LING v. 劉西 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1286/2012

The plaintiff, having had prior exclusive possession, retained locus to sue; the defence of abandonment was rejected on the facts and in law; the court found an oral agreement that 1st defendant would settle arrears and remedial costs in return for possession until mid‑2010; estoppel applied to preclude the 1st defendant (and through him the 2nd defendant) from denying the plaintiff's right to possession; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits assessed by the court.
11 Dec 1992

TANG SHU TIN AND OTHERS v. TANG KIN KWOK AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG SHU TIN AND OTHERS v. TANG KIN KWOK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1021/1991

The court held that the statutory deemed grant under Cap.152 created a new and distinct title which conferred a right of action accruing on 1 July 1973; that right was not extinguished by prior adverse possession because the new lease constituted a fresh accrual of title and the Limitation Ordinance does not operate to defeat that statutory grant before 30 June 1993.
19 Dec 1989

HO HANG WAN v. MA TING CHEUNG

Citation

HO HANG WAN v. MA TING CHEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/1989

The licence terminated automatically on the licensor's death; the appellant's post‑1964 physical and unequivocal exclusive possession supported an inference of animus possidendi notwithstanding mental reservations imputed to a licensee; accordingly she acquired a possessory title and the defendant's counterclaim for possession failed.
2 Nov 1988

KING DOH RESTAURANT LIMITED v. STEREO LIMITED

Citation

KING DOH RESTAURANT LIMITED v. STEREO LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6404/1988

Because the landlady's written consent together with the Deed of Mutual Covenants and the tenancy agreement prima facie entitled the defendant to erect the advertisement sign and scaffoldings and there was no evidence of unlawful trespass or breach, the plaintiff's interlocutory summons was dismissed for lack of substance; the plaintiff's application to adjourn was refused and proposed amendments to the summons were refused as unsupported, while re-amendment of the Amended Statement of Claim was allowed on terms.
14 Mar 1986

CHAN SHUI KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TONG CHIU HON

Citation

CHAN SHUI KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TONG CHIU HON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV202/1985

The Court held that the express recital in the leases demonstrated the tenant intended to deprive himself of the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance; s.22 permits such agreements and its 'and in particular' wording is illustrative, therefore no statutory tenancy arose and the landlord was entitled to possession.
2 May 1985

LAM WAI v. TAM SAU HING & WONG FOOK

Citation

LAM WAI v. TAM SAU HING & WONG FOOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4090/1984

Defendants were licensees at will rather than occupants adverse to title; their occupation was permissive and not hostile to the owner's title, therefore adverse possession did not arise and plaintiff is entitled to possession.
29 Sept 1982

CHU PAK SANG v. LAW YIN FOON AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU PAK SANG v. LAW YIN FOON AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPA6/1981

The consent order unambiguously required payment to the applicant; the applicant, although not the registered owner, was entitled to receive rent under the extended statutory definition of 'landlord' and under the consent order; cashier's orders payable to the registered owner did not constitute payment to the applicant and were therefore not compliance with the order; payment had not been made to the applicant and ejectment was justified; monies paid into court were to be released to the applicant.
3 Jul 1974

SHING SHUN HANG LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. SIU KWONG HONG LTD

Citation

SHING SHUN HANG LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. SIU KWONG HONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1779/1973

The court held that where illegality is alleged the court must inquire into the true nature of the transaction and may admit extrinsic evidence despite an express written denial; on the balance of probabilities the court found key money of $10,500 was paid to the landlord's agent in 1972, rendering the tenancy agreement unenforceable and requiring dismissal of the plaintiff's ejectment claim.
11 Jul 1973

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FAR EAST PAINT CO (A FIRM)

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FAR EAST PAINT CO (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15/1973

Because the Crown had the power to facilitate lawful alternative accommodation and there was no evidence it had assisted the licensee, the court adjourned the application for three months to allow the Crown to assure availability of licensed premises and to enable the appellant to take energetic steps to obtain them; this was the necessary balancing of public safety and the appellant's prejudice.