Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lease enforcement

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2025

WINDERMERE HOLDINGS LTD 對中國文化藝術香港有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 72
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1281/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no other reason favouring a hearing was shown; the respondent's alleged oral renewal was not enforceable against the bona fide purchaser because it was not in writing or registered; the respondent's failure to adduce the WeChat evidence at the original hearing did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test; the respondent is bound by the signed lease; no stay was granted; costs of the leave application were awarded to the applicant assessed at HK$10,000.
27 Nov 2023

ROBERT JOHN FRANCIS BROTHERS AND ANOTHER v. NEW RUI INTERNATIONAL CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3062
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA654/2023

On the facts the Defendant, by its correspondence and conduct (notably the 8 November 2022 letter and the 16 January 2023 position reinforced by letters of 1 and 16 February 2023 and its attempts to work out remedial plans with DLO), acted inconsistently with an intention to rescind and thereby unequivocally affirmed the SPA; rescission is therefore not a triable issue and the $10 million tax retention sum held in escrow is to be released to the Plaintiffs; set-off was not pleaded and damages are indeterminate so no stay pending trial was justified.
20 Mar 2023

MA TAK YUEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1551/2022

The application for leave was dismissed: it was rendered academic by demolition of the unauthorised structures and, in any event, disclosed no arguable public law error because lease enforcement is a matter of land administration not ordinarily amenable to judicial review, the applicant failed to identify proper public law grounds and failed to make full and frank disclosure; costs awarded against applicant.
31 May 2022

SUNEVISION HOLDINGS LTD v. HONG KONG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS CORPORATION

Citation

[2022] HKCA 763
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV80/2020

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal: the Corporation's 28 May 2018 decision was founded on an erroneous construction because it failed to consider whether a grantee had retained exclusive control of access (the critical element of the Occupation Restriction) when determining compliance; that misconstruction breached the applicant's legitimate expectation and the Corporation's Tameside duty; the 28 May 2018 decision is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Corporation to reconsider in accordance with the court's construction of the Occupation Restriction.
26 Mar 2020

SUNEVISION HOLDINGS LTD v. HONG KONG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS CORPORATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 548
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1890/2018

The May 2018 Letter was lawful and untainted by error: the Corporation did not misinterpret or depart from its Data Centre Policy, it reasonably applied the three governing tests to admission and enforcement, the approved pro forma service agreement of Global Switch did not grant exclusive possession to customers and therefore did not breach lease restrictions, and the Corporation’s inspection and enforcement regime was not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the judicial review claim was dismissed.
7 Apr 2014

CHI HONG CHING YUEN LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHI HONG CHING YUEN LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL107/2013

The court refused leave to apply for judicial review because the dispute involves enforcement of contractual/grant conditions and substantial disputes of fact that make judicial review an inappropriate forum; the correct avenue is private law proceedings. The court also held the three-month period ran from receipt of the letter (16 April 2013) so no extension was required.
20 May 2009

CHEUNG SHING SCRAP METALS RECYCLING LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHEUNG SHING SCRAP METALS RECYCLING LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL54/2008

The Director's decision not to enforce the tenancy arose from the exercise of landlord powers in the private domain and therefore was not amenable to judicial review; alternatively, on the merits the applicant failed to prove a material error of fact or a clear, unambiguous representation giving rise to legitimate expectation and furthermore lacked standing, so the judicial review application was dismissed.
19 Nov 2003

AU HIN MAN v. AU YAT CHOR

Citation

AU HIN MAN v. AU YAT CHOR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10353/2000

On the evidence the defendant failed to prove an express or resulting trust in his favour; the conduct and admissions (including participation in probate/letters of administration matters and the Lease) rebutted the presumption of resulting trust and demonstrated the donor intention — the court held Au Yat Kong had a 50% beneficial interest in both properties, ordered declaratory relief and an order for sale, awarded mesne profits for the lease period (HK$450,000) and dismissed the defendant's counterclaims for loans and possession.