Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Holding over

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2021

PO DING CO LTD 對 CHU, BO LAM 及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 21
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE788/2019

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the first respondent continued in possession after the lease expired and that the applicant treated her as tenant (WhatsApp communications and statements of account), found no credible evidence of a new tenancy in the second respondent's name, and therefore held the first respondent liable for holding-over rent and other sums. The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused because the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success and fresh evidence principles would not permit late new evidence.
14 May 2014

WINLAND ENTERPRISES LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

WINLAND ENTERPRISES LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1061/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent's grounds attacked primary factual findings rather than raising an identifiable point of law and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the application for stay of execution was granted for two months (until 14 July 2014) because the limited extension balanced the prejudice between parties and addressed the respondent's demonstrated practical hardship without unduly prejudicing the applicants.
14 May 2014

UNITED MERIT DEVELPMENT LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

UNITED MERIT DEVELPMENT LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1062/2013

The Notices of Expiry of Tenancy were invitations to treat requiring execution of formal tenancy agreements under Clause 1(6); subsequent negotiations and debit notes did not create binding new tenancies as a matter of objective construction and credibility findings; the respondent failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal so leave was refused, but a limited two-month stay of execution was granted for practical prejudice reasons.
11 Oct 2013

TANG LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. HARRY ALSO KNOWN AS STAUDT, GERHARDUS MARTINUS

Citation

TANG LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. HARRY ALSO KNOWN AS STAUDT, GERHARDUS MARTINUS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD754/2013

There was no new tenancy concluded because commencement was made conditional on repairs that were not done; the respondent was holding over under the expired 2009 tenancy and thus a monthly periodic tenancy at the old rent of $2,300 arose; the respondent must pay arrears/mesne profits from 1 August 2012 at $2,300 per month, deliver vacant possession and pay applicants' costs fixed at $20,000, subject to relief from forfeiture if all arrears and costs are paid into the Tribunal by 25 October 2013.
21 Jan 2013

KEENFORD REALTY LTD v. JAM DEI TRADING LTD

Citation

KEENFORD REALTY LTD v. JAM DEI TRADING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2688/2012

The NTQ was validly served and terminated the monthly tenancy on 30 June 2012; the defendant remained liable for rent arrears and interest under the applicable tenancy terms; there was no evidence to support the defendant's asserted transfer fee or damage claims; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiff and striking out of the defendant's counterclaim were warranted.
17 Jan 2003

VICTOR ONWARD PRINTING & DYEING (HONG KONG) LTD v. JEKCO ELEVATORS LTD

Citation

VICTOR ONWARD PRINTING & DYEING (HONG KONG) LTD v. JEKCO ELEVATORS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5363/2002

Defendant was not justified in withholding rent for the asserted air-conditioner defect on the evidence; the rental deposit could not be set off against outstanding sums under the tenancy terms or by implication; plaintiff entitled to summary judgment for the agreed outstanding sum; costs awarded to plaintiff on party and party basis.
4 Jan 2002

SHUI ON CENTRE CO. LTD. v. TO PERSONS UNKNOWN AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHUI ON CENTRE CO. LTD. v. TO PERSONS UNKNOWN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6029/2001

The tenancy agreement expressly made the tenancy personal to Silver Grand and prohibited holding the premises on trust for a third party; those contractual terms excluded any assertion by an undisclosed principal that it was the true contracting party. Therefore the 2nd defendant could not rely on agency/undisclosed principal to resist the possession application and the possession order was granted.
14 Jul 2000

SHUM TSUNG FAI v. CHIAP HENG CHENG (H.K.) LTD.

Citation

SHUM TSUNG FAI v. CHIAP HENG CHENG (H.K.) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8941/1998

Plaintiff failed to present evidence and its claim was dismissed; the defendant proved its counterclaim on the balance of probabilities and was awarded the deposit balance of $74,000, with interest from 2 July 1998 at the stated rates and costs to the defendant.
2 Dec 1997

LIU CHUN KUI AND OTHERS v. LIU WING FAT

Citation

LIU CHUN KUI AND OTHERS v. LIU WING FAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1115/1995

Court accepted the direct comparison method and the 15% bulk discount as reflecting licensee profit and overheads; applied an 80% occupancy rate to 17 parking spaces (multiplier 13.6); adopted per-space monthly rates of $750 (1995), $950 (1996) and $1,200 (1997) leading to a pre-double total of $332,520 and an award of double value $665,040, with interest from writ to payment and costs to plaintiffs.
22 Feb 1990

YING FUNG DISTILLERY LTD v. HO HUNG SANG

Citation

YING FUNG DISTILLERY LTD v. HO HUNG SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5345/1988

The court rejected the plaintiff's $19,000 figure because the valuer failed to take into account recurring flooding and relied on only two comparables; the defendant's contemporaneous offer of $15,000 for a new lease was accepted as a reliable indicator of the market rent, resulting in an award of $15,000 per month for five months plus rates and interest.