Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lease extension

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2021

FRONTRICH INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANTOTHER v. WONG SUI HING

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 765
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA260/2021

The court concluded that the matter raised serious issues to be tried but deferred final determination. At the return date the court adjourned the substantive hearing of the summons and ordered directed procedural steps for affidavit evidence rather than finally granting or refusing the interim injunction, thereby preserving issues for trial while managing interlocutory procedure.
6 Dec 2019

YIM TIN FOOK AND ANOTHER v. YU CHOR LAI, KONG WAI HUNG and SOU KA LUN t/a WANG CHEUNG INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2933
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2613/2006

The statutory extension of the Block Lease effected by the NTLEO in 1988 did not change the legal or beneficial ownership of the leasehold estate in the Parent Lot (ownership remained with D2); accordingly D2's counterclaim fails as against the Registered Owners including those who did not appear; interlocutory judgment for mesne profits against D1 and D2 is granted with directions for assessment; DC6 is not entitled to demolition or delivery up of vacant possession because it did not plead and pursue such relief; costs are awarded to the Registered Owners and a certificate for two counsel is…
16 Nov 2012

陳麗珍對 881工程公司

Citation

陳麗珍對 881工程公司
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE786/2012

The tribunal found the handwritten clause, written on a stamped copy of the lease and signed by the tenant, was a valid supplementary agreement that extended the tenancy for two years to 14 August 2014 at HK$9,500 per month; accordingly the landlord’s application for possession was dismissed and no costs order was made.
5 Jan 2006

MOK YUEN FUN AND ANOTHER v. CHINA OVERSEAS GRAND GAIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

MOK YUEN FUN AND ANOTHER v. CHINA OVERSEAS GRAND GAIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV12/2005

Section 6 of the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance extends the term of the existing leases (plain meaning) so the leases remain the same estates with extended terms; accordingly where the lessee's right of action to recover possession had become barred under the Limitation Ordinance and its title extinguished as against squatters by s.17, the lessee remained barred and the appeals by the squatters succeed. The Court allowed the appeals and restored the declarations/reliefs below; the cross‑appeal on factual adverse possession was dismissed.
15 Apr 2005

CHINA OVERSEAS GRAND GAIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MOK YUEN FUN AND PERSONS UNKNOWN

Citation

CHINA OVERSEAS GRAND GAIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MOK YUEN FUN AND PERSONS UNKNOWN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP968/1999

Bound by the Court of Appeal in Chan Tin Shi, the judge held that section 6 of the Extension Ordinance creates a new estate restarting the limitation period, that section 7 does not protect the defendant's adverse possession in this context, and that the plaintiff's registered documentary title (showing extension to 2047) defeats any arguable defence; accordingly the defence and counterclaim disclose no reasonable cause and must be struck out.
19 Nov 2004

CHAN TIN SHI v. LI TIN SUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN TIN SHI v. LI TIN SUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2003

The Court of Appeal held that s.6 of the Extension Ordinance created a new estate (or at least a new legal right) for lessees who did not opt out under s.5; because the extension constituted a new statutory legal estate, prior adverse possession which extinguished the lessee's title under the old lease did not operate to extinguish rights under the new estate and limitation time began to run anew in respect of the new estate. Consequently the plaintiff's claim based on earlier adverse possession failed and the appeal was allowed.
29 Jul 1999

KAM LAN KOON AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

KAM LAN KOON AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/1998

The Director of Lands' decision refusing extension was judicially reviewable, but on the facts the grant was for a specific stipulated private purpose (an ancestral Chi Tong) which was not fulfilled by the building's use as a Taoist public temple; appellants lacked proper standing (first applicant unconstituted, second a stranger, third not sole grantee) and assignments breached the permanent non-assignment covenant, justifying refusal of extension; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent with specified interlocutory exceptions.
20 Feb 1998

HING WONG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

HING WONG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/1997

The 1987 policy did not give rise to an unqualified legitimate expectation of renewal; Special Condition 6(a) requires the actual tanning process and does not extend to mere airing, drying or storage of already tanned leather; the Director lawfully took into account relevant considerations (past breaches, prolonged non-use, sincerity of remedial acts and planning/public purpose) and his decision not to extend the lease was not irrational, so the application for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed.