Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Market rent assessment

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2006

SUNBEAM INVESTMENTS LTD v. PEEPELS, STEPHEN

Citation

SUNBEAM INVESTMENTS LTD v. PEEPELS, STEPHEN
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD3137/2005

The Tribunal preferred the respondent expert's interpolation method for time adjustments, accepted a limited upward orientation adjustment and a 5% downward adjustment for condition, accepted standard floor-level adjustments (0.75% per floor), rejected an allowance for neighbouring unit renovation noise, averaged the two best adjusted comparables to derive a net monthly rent of $69,789 and added agreed outgoings of $11,500 to determine the prevailing inclusive market rent at $81,300 per month from 1 September 2005.
2 Feb 2005

JOHN RAYMOND WYTT v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

JOHN RAYMOND WYTT v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT24/2001

Grant a two year new tenancy commencing 21 January 2001 because the respondent failed to demonstrate special circumstances justifying a later commencement date, a later date would prejudice the applicant financially and the respondent did not nominate a specific later date; accept the applicant's expert valuation with a minor upward adjustment resulting in a fixed market rent of HK$44,000 per month; refuse interest on refunds for lack of jurisdiction.
2 Jul 2003

DAVIDSON, JUSTIN CRESEY v. NG HON SUN MEYAR

Citation

DAVIDSON, JUSTIN CRESEY v. NG HON SUN MEYAR
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT41/2003

The Tribunal identified suitable comparables from the RVD lists, excluded those with materially earlier commencement dates absent indexation, made quantifiable adjustments for orientation, facilities and management fees, plotted adjusted unit rents against floor level to identify the market trend, and concluded that a monthly rent of HK$25,000 (exclusive of management fee and rates but inclusive of the car parking space and government rent) represents the market rent for the new tenancy.
23 Sept 2002

PERSONAL ELECTRONICS LTD v. PANTAI INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

PERSONAL ELECTRONICS LTD v. PANTAI INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT22/2002

The Tribunal held that the new lease for House 17, although commencing after the relevant date, was admissible as a comparable because it was close in time and capable of proper time and condition adjustments; after adjustments the Tribunal discarded House 13 as an outlier, averaged adjusted unit rates of House 3 and House 17 to arrive at an adopted unit rate of $93.02 per sq.m., applied it to the Premises (187.82 sq.m.) and fixed the prevailing market rent at $17,500 per month exclusive of rates and management charges, substituting the earlier orders accordingly.
8 Jul 2002

PERSONAL ELECTRONICS LTD. v. PANTAI INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

PERSONAL ELECTRONICS LTD. v. PANTAI INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT22/2002

The Tribunal fixed the prevailing market rent as at 30 April 2002 by using direct comparison with two suitable comparables in the same development (Houses 3 and 17), applying time adjustments using Private Domestic - Rental Indices to bring earlier lettings to the relevant date, applying a 3% downward condition adjustment to reflect water damage/poorer condition relative to new lettings, excluding renovation expenses incurred six years earlier and excluding comparables lacking necessary evidence (carparks, facilities). On that basis the Tribunal assessed the market rent at HKD 17,800 per mont…
7 May 2002

Karl Storz Endoscopy China Ltd. v. Leung Sai Kwan

Citation

Karl Storz Endoscopy China Ltd. v. Leung Sai Kwan
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT326/2001

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for a declaration that the respondent was liable to refund the HK$114,000 deposit and for an undertaking to carry out specified repairs because (1) clause 5(2)(c) was not triggered: the sale to the respondent was by mortgagee possession under Order 88 and the vendor declared it had not received any rental deposit so there was no disposal by the previous landlord and no transfer of the deposit; and (2) the Lands Tribunal's jurisdiction under s.119J is limited to determining terms of the new tenancy and does not permit enforcement of obligations und…
23 Apr 2002

DR. OWENS TRODD & PARTNERS O/B PACIFIC PRIMARY HEALTHCARE LTD. v. CHARLIE C.K. LEE

Citation

DR. OWENS TRODD & PARTNERS O/B PACIFIC PRIMARY HEALTHCARE LTD. v. CHARLIE C.K. LEE
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT309/2000

The Tribunal preferred and relied on the consistent evidence of the Respondent's expert (Mr Poon) despite his not inspecting internally because the Applicant's expert (Mr Cullen) was discredited by blatant discrepancies and inconsistencies; using four adjusted comparables and a downward adjustment for defects, the Tribunal assessed the prevailing market rent at $35,600 per month exclusive of rates and management fees and granted the new 2-year tenancy from 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2002.
7 Feb 2002

CHEN, JEFFERY HUI v. HUMPHREYS ESTATE (DOUGLAS) HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

CHEN, JEFFERY HUI v. HUMPHREYS ESTATE (DOUGLAS) HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT352/2001

Tribunal accepted the applicant expert's overall estimate but rejected any separate allowance for a monopoly element because higher rents were explained by serviced-apartment operation and the use of comparables from other towers adequately guarded against monopoly distortion; unit rate fixed at $439.5 per sqm (exclusive of rates) and rent fixed at $45,000 (exclusive of rates).
7 Jan 2002

LACHLAN DAVID RUTHERFORD v. KING FIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Citation

LACHLAN DAVID RUTHERFORD v. KING FIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT274/2001

The Tribunal adjusted the provided comparables for view, size, domestic appliances, garden and condition, rejected time index adjustment and inclusion of unauthorized areas, excluded comparables whose adjusted unit rents lay more than 20% outside the mean (comparables 3 and 6), used the average adjusted unit rent of $219.52/sq.m for the remaining comparables and assessed the prevailing market rent at $219.52 x 169 sq.m = $37,098.88, rounded to $37,100 pcm exclusive of rates and management fees.
11 Aug 2000

Personal Electronics Ltd. v. Pantai Investments Ltd.

Citation

Personal Electronics Ltd. v. Pantai Investments Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT93/2000

The Tribunal fixed the valuation date as 30 April 2000, gave primary weight to the best comparable (House 17, actual tenancy February 2000), adjusted that comparable to reflect the correct inclusions/exclusions for rates and management fees, rejected or gave little weight to related‑party and outlier comparables and historical purchase prices, and thereby set the new rent at $23,713 per month exclusive.