Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lease expiry

Legal area

Court

25 Jul 2022

HYPER LINK LTD 對 EARTH GROUP LTD

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 31
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE317/2022

The lease expired on 27 March 2022 and the respondent failed to surrender vacant possession; the respondent therefore remained an unlawful occupier liable to pay mesne profits at the contractual rent rate from 28 January 2022 until return of vacant possession; documentary rent records provided by the applicant established arrears on the balance of probabilities and the respondent failed to discharge its evidential burden; counterclaims and tort allegations fall outside the Lands Tribunal's jurisdiction; deposits/prepayments were not proven to be rent and cannot be offset; accordingly the orig…
2 Jun 2022

黃西利及另一人對黃錦祺

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 24
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE165/2022

The tribunal held that the proposed respondent had no realistic prospect of success on appeal and no sufficient interest in the lease dispute to warrant joinder; joinder would be impracticable given the potentially large class of Tso beneficiaries, the issues of managers' authority are distinct from the applicant's entitlement to recover possession on lease expiry, and therefore leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded against the proposed respondent.
21 Jul 2021

桂洪地產有限公司對李清奇

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 53
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD818/2021

The lease had expired on 30 April 2021; applicant validly recovered vacant possession; respondent produced no evidence of acceptance of the alleged HK$800 proposal; WhatsApp evidence supported applicant's account; there was no error of law in the tribunal's decision and no reasonable prospect of success on appeal, so leave to appeal was refused.
7 Dec 2016

RAMADOUR INDUSTRIES LTD v. BULLEN CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

Citation

RAMADOUR INDUSTRIES LTD v. BULLEN CHRISTIAN ANTHONY
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2025/2016

The review is dismissed because the Tribunal correctly concluded the applicant's claim based on lease expiry was a distinct and straightforward ground not barred or rendered substantially the same as earlier proceedings; the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to proceed and to refuse transfer; the respondent's set-off allegations did not justify review or adjournment and no proper basis was shown to overturn the original orders; the costs summary of $19,862 was reasonable and the review itself attracts no costs order (decision on papers).
17 Jul 2013

古信誠對捷衡有限公司

Citation

古信誠對捷衡有限公司
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE331/2013

The Tribunal concluded the 2011 written lease validly replaced the earlier agreement and expired on 31 March 2013; the respondent failed to prove non‑service, fraud or any lawful basis to overturn the decision; the review grounds had no real prospect of success and the original 19 June 2013 decision was upheld.
14 Nov 2012

TSUI LAI SUEN 及另一人對何俊輝

Citation

TSUI LAI SUEN 及另一人對何俊輝
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1862/2012

The tenancy became a monthly periodic tenancy upon the tenant's continued occupation after 14 June 2012; because a monthly periodic tenancy requires at least one month's notice computed by the corresponding date rule, the lawyer’s letter sent 29 June 2012 was served on 30 June 2012 and was therefore late and ineffective; further, the landlord did not comply with the statutory pre-termination notice requirements in Cap.219 s58(1) before seeking repossession for alleged breach of clause 12; accordingly the application for possession is dismissed.
27 Oct 2011

TANG WAI HON v. ALL OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG WAI HON v. ALL OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA809/2011

The court held that the plaintiff's lease was valid and stamped, the 2nd Defendant's sublease and any rights expired on 31 December 2010 so he had no defence to the claim for possession; the proposed amendments raised no triable issues; summary judgment was appropriate for possession and for mesne profits assessed at HK$28,800 per month from 1 January 2011 until delivery of vacant possession; costs awarded to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HYPER LINK LTD 對 EARTH GROUP LTD

黃西利及另一人 對 黃錦祺

桂洪地產有限公司 對 李清奇

RAMADOUR INDUSTRIES LTD v. BULLEN CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

古信誠 對 捷衡有限公司

TSUI LAI SUEN 及另一人 對 何俊輝

TANG WAI HON v. ALL OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER

黃西利及另一人對黃錦祺

桂洪地產有限公司對李清奇

古信誠對捷衡有限公司

TSUI LAI SUEN 及另一人對何俊輝