Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lease termination

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2026

BONTEX INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KAISER INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 117
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1560/2021

The court found Bontex proved Kaiser repudiated the Lease by non-payment and surrender of possession; the defendants failed to prove the alleged pre-contract oral misrepresentations and failed to prove the staircase was an unauthorised building structure that deprived quiet enjoyment; Clause 4.16 of the Lease precluded reliance on prior representations and COECO was not properly pleaded or applicable; Kaiser’s counterclaim was struck out for lack of representation and Hiew is liable under his guarantee; judgment awarded HK$5,160,308.26 plus contractual interest and costs order nisi to Bontex.
24 Jul 2025

蕭楗燊 v. DEVI MADHURI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 843
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4475/2022

The 1st defendant unilaterally terminated the lease without the plaintiff's consent, is bound by Clause 1 despite not understanding Chinese, and is liable for rent to the end of the fixed term plus unpaid electricity and management fees; deposit is to be applied and deducted to avoid double recovery; counterclaim for harassment and claimed losses from electricity disconnection and other damages are dismissed for lack of credible and corroborating evidence.
20 Feb 2023

CHUN HING TIMBER CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. JOYCE EMPIRE LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 235
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4045/2019

The Lands Department's written warning dated 25 March 2019 made clear the defendant's works extended to adjoining land and required rectification including demolition; that formal notice triggered clause 15 permitting the defendant to determine the lease; the termination notice sent to the plaintiffs' solicitors was validly served and received; vacant possession of the plaintiffs' land was not shown to have been delivered, so the defendant was entitled only to return of the rental deposit of HK$120,000 and not the rent paid in advance; costs awarded to defendant on party and party basis and i…
26 Jun 2020

TAK SHING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. SMART CHOICE INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1317
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA588/2017

Defendant failed to prove frustration: the Jardine's Bazaar incident caused only temporary local disruption that did not preclude use or access to the premises and there was no evidence of prolonged impossibility; Building Department inspections and absence of expert contrary evidence showed no significant structural danger; defendant's willingness to continue at reduced rent undermined any claim of impossibility. Therefore the tenancy was not frustrated, defendant repudiated the tenancy on 9 September 2015, and plaintiff is entitled to damages, interest and costs.
22 Feb 2019

LIU KAM HOI AND OTHERS v. LIU PING KUEN the personal representative of the estate of LIU FUN KEE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 194
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2017

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant had earlier admitted, in pleadings and sworn affirmations/witness statement, that Portions 1, 1A and 1B were leased (as shown in the LPK-5 plan); the defendant later attempted to change that case but the Recorder found the explanations not credible, and therefore the burden remained on the defendant to prove a title inconsistent with the plaintiffs' registered ownership, which he failed to do, entitling the plaintiffs to vacant possession of the specified portions.
15 May 2013

VINCENTONE LIMITED v. PROFIT LOCK LIMITED

Citation

VINCENTONE LIMITED v. PROFIT LOCK LIMITED
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ258/2012

Defendant repudiated the lease by returning keys and ceasing rent; plaintiff validly accepted repudiation and mitigated by reletting; plaintiff proved loss of rental income and entitlement to damages of HK$187,650; defendant's counterclaim failed for want of evidence; sanctioned offer dated 2 April 2013 was not amended by plaintiff's later letter and, because defendant did not accept within 28 days, plaintiff is entitled to enhanced interest and indemnity costs from 1 May 2013; costs are party-and-party up to 30 April 2013 and indemnity thereafter; payment into court of HK$187,650 plus accrue…
22 Jul 2009

FONFAIR CO LTD v. FULL CREATION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FONFAIR CO LTD v. FULL CREATION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA835/2009

Mega Yield validly exercised the Option and entered the MY Lease on 12 September 2008 such that the Lease with Full Creation was terminated and Fonfair was entitled to vacant possession from 20 September 2008; Fonfair's re‑entry on 29 May 2009 was lawful; Full Creation's counterclaim for specific performance and On Kee's claims were dismissed; Fonfair awarded mesne profits netting $210,000 with indemnity issue against Mega Yield adjourned sine die.
22 Jul 2009

FONFAIR CO LTD v. FULL CREATION DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

FONFAIR CO LTD v. FULL CREATION DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1915/2008

Mega Yield validly exercised the Option and entered into the MY Lease thereby triggering the Special Conditions; Fonfair's written notice terminated Full Creation's Lease effective 20 September 2008; Fonfair was therefore entitled to vacant possession and to recover mesne profits with the court calculating a net balance of HKD 210,000 after set‑offs; claims against On Kee and Full Creation's counterclaims were dismissed; indemnity issue adjourned sine die.
7 Oct 2005

CAYMAN CO LTD v. VIOLET BOOKS CO LTD

Citation

CAYMAN CO LTD v. VIOLET BOOKS CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT5588/2005

Because the warrant was applied for on 21 September 2005 when the tenancy was still subsisting, a subsequently issued writ did not retrospectively extinguish the existing right of distress and the warrant was valid; Cap.7 s.102 permits distraint 'as if such term or lease had not been ended or determined' and any double recovery issues are to be resolved in the main action.
22 May 1990

WAYFOONG CREDIT LTD v. NG SIU CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

WAYFOONG CREDIT LTD v. NG SIU CHEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4215/1989

Damages for the unexpired term are calculated by taking total remaining rentals, deducting the judicially determined market value of the goods and crediting the Rule of 78 rebate; clause 8(e) cannot preclude judicial determination and the lessor's sale process must be fair; valuations by an independent valuer were preferred to the private realisation prices, producing certified damages totalling HK$82,964.05.