Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lease renewal

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2034
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2632/2018

Court implied terms into the SPA requiring each party to use best or reasonable endeavours to agree the Closing Audit within six months of Closing Date or within a reasonable time thereafter (no later than one year), because without such an implication the SPA would lack commercial and practical coherence; True Vision breached that implied obligation by failing to engage and provide adequate particulars within the reasonable period, therefore BDO's Closing Audit was held final and binding for calculation of the Total Price and the Third Guarantee Amount (US$37,434,469). The court further held…
27 Apr 2026

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2034
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2560/2018

The court implied limited but necessary terms into the SPA that the parties must use best or reasonable endeavours to agree the Closing Audit within six months or, at latest, within a reasonable time (construed as one year from Closing Date) so the Third Guarantee Amount could be ascertained; True Vision breached those implied obligations by failing to pursue and particularise audit queries and is bound by the Closing Audit; Giant Harvest entitled to US$37,434,469 as Third Guarantee Amount and RMB3,010,000 Yabao Settlement Sum; True Vision entitled to RMB380,000,000 Compensation for MIXC non-…
14 Mar 2018

羅肇群對超虹有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 13
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1140/2017

The tribunal found the dispute was determinable as a point of law: oral renewal promises were ineffective and there was no written request to renew, so the absent witness evidence could not affect the legal outcome; accordingly the review failed and costs were awarded to the applicant.
14 Feb 2017

HARBOUR FRONT LTD v. MONEY FACTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HARBOUR FRONT LTD v. MONEY FACTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW116/2015

The court granted validation for renewal of the lease because the company was shown to be solvent, letting the property is within its ordinary course of business, the directors' reasons were such that an intelligent and honest person could reasonably hold them, and the petitioner failed to produce compelling evidence that the transaction would injure the company; the retainer of Savills was conditionally validated limited to advisory and marketing roles subject to a formal agreement or deferment to the receivership hearing.
19 Jan 2015

張加慶對何端洲

Citation

張加慶對何端洲
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD81/2014

On the balance of probabilities the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that an oral 3‑year renewal (to 31 Dec 2016) at HKD70,000 per annum was concluded; the applicant failed to rebut that case, was absent from the hearing and relied on hearsay or inconsistent representative evidence, therefore the possession application was dismissed and rent for 2015 was ordered payable by the respondent.
29 Dec 2014

榮興罐頭酒業有限公司對 LANDIS BROTHERS & CO LTD

Citation

榮興罐頭酒業有限公司對 LANDIS BROTHERS & CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE618/2014

No renewal agreement was proved on the balance of probabilities; tenant validly returned vacant possession on 14 May 2014 because it gave notice and took reasonable steps to notify landlord and had no intention to retain possession; tenant liable for interim rent, management fee and rates for 7–14 May 2014 and for proven lighting damages; landlord entitled to deduct these sums from the security deposit and return the balance; no order for costs.
6 Nov 2014

TONG LEUNG HEY LEO 對陳季祥

Citation

TONG LEUNG HEY LEO 對陳季祥
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1745/2014

On the balance of probabilities the tribunal found the parties reached an oral agreement to renew the lease for one year and that the applicant's June 22, 2014 termination notice was ineffective because it did not terminate on the tenancy period end; applying these factual findings and the statutory test for leave, the tribunal refused permission to appeal as there was no reasonable prospect of success.
2 Sept 2009

FAR EAST LAND (CHINA) LTD v. CAMLEIGH INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

FAR EAST LAND (CHINA) LTD v. CAMLEIGH INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1178/2009

The alleged oral statement was too vague to create a binding collateral contract or an actionable misrepresentation, was excluded by the Tenancy Agreement's clear whole‑agreement clauses, and there was no evidence of any vitiating factor to avoid the binding effect of the appellant's signature; therefore the strike‑out was correct and the appeal fails.
23 May 2008

THE LINK PROPERTIES LTD v. NG SUNG CHEUNG

Citation

THE LINK PROPERTIES LTD v. NG SUNG CHEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2944/2007

There are credible, non‑frivolous factual disputes as to whether the confirmation slip was delivered and whether the withdrawal reached the defendant before acceptance; those disputes cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence and therefore summary judgment on the remaining claim is refused and unconditional leave to defend is granted, while partial judgment for mesne profits is entered.
10 Nov 2004

ROSCO TOYS LTD v. PRIME SUN INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

ROSCO TOYS LTD v. PRIME SUN INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT116/2004

The Tribunal rejected reliance on a single in-development renewal given abnormally low occupancy and possible non-market renewals, adjusted the external comparable (Glendale) by 20% to reflect superior positioning of Carmina Place, cross-checked the result against rateable value, and determined the PMR to be $48,500 per month inclusive; it also granted two specific early-termination options because of the impending major renovation works and the terms of the previous tenancy.