Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Market rent determination

  • 6 Jun 2017

    GENIUS EXPRESS LTD AND ANOTHER v. MANI LTD

    Citation
    GENIUS EXPRESS LTD AND ANOTHER v. MANI LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2714/2014

    The court applied the comparative/direct comparison method, preferring suitable comparables from the same building where available, and accepted the expert valuation results reached through the evidential process. On that basis the court determined the monthly market rent for the renewal period at the expert-assessed levels: Units A-D on 21/F at HKD 158,000 per month (HKD 7.54 per sq ft on 20,950 sq ft) and Unit D on 22/F at HKD 40,500 per month (HKD 7.84 per sq ft on 5,170 sq ft).

  • 12 Jul 2016

    GENIUS EXPRESS LTD AND ANOTHER v. MANI LTD

    Citation
    GENIUS EXPRESS LTD AND ANOTHER v. MANI LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2714/2014

    The court ordered the agreed alternative order and made an order for costs in the cause on the tenant's summons; the landlords' summons was to be withdrawn with costs in the cause. The market rent determination is to proceed in accordance with the Tenancy Agreements and the single joint expert's findings, with the extent of agreement or disagreement to be stated with reasons.

  • 25 May 2006

    GREATWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HIP HAIR CULTURE LTD

    Citation
    GREATWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HIP HAIR CULTURE LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3534/2005

    The appeal was dismissed because the defendant's communications only manifested an intention to exercise the option and did not constitute an unequivocal exercise; market rent had not been agreed or ascertained at the relevant time, so no binding renewal was formed and Master Chan's interlocutory order awarding partial judgment was correct.

  • 5 Jan 2004

    MATTHEW M KINGMAN v. GENTLE INVESTMENT LTD

    Citation
    MATTHEW M KINGMAN v. GENTLE INVESTMENT LTD
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT118/2003

    The Tribunal granted the new tenancy for three years from 1 September 2003 and fixed the monthly rent at HK$47,000 exclusive of rates and management fee based on revisions to the comparable rents: excluded an unsuitable comparable (Comparable 4), accepted specific adjustments (time, floor level 0.5% per floor, garden area 345 sqm, car parking at HK$3,000 per space) and rejected speculative adjustments (internal condition, appliance adjustments); the Tribunal apportioned weight between the experts and used a combined approach to derive a unit rate of HK$136.4/m2 leading to the assessed rent of…

  • 24 Jan 2003

    CHRISTOPHER JAMES FRAPE v. CHEER WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

    Citation
    CHRISTOPHER JAMES FRAPE v. CHEER WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT205/2002

    Tribunal accepted the expert's methodology broadly but modified several adjustments (reduced location and accessibility adjustments, rejected age adjustment, reduced domestic appliances allowance to 3.5%, accepted 8% deduction where management fees included and allowed a 10% deduction for lack of lift on Comparable 4), excluded Comparable 2 as an outlier, calculated an average adjusted unit rate of $148.95 per sq.m and applied it to the subject saleable area of 176.2 sq.m to fix the monthly rent at $26,200 exclusive; granted the new tenancy for two years commencing 1 November 2002.

  • 10 Sept 2002

    DOULTSONS LTD. v. LEE PUI NANG

    Citation
    DOULTSONS LTD. v. LEE PUI NANG
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT107/2002

    The Tribunal selected comparables 3, 4 and 7 from the same development, adopted the experts' accepted methodology for adjustments (time index per R&V Department, 0.5% per floor, 2% downward for internal condition and 2% for chattels), adopted Ms. Lo's car park rental values, averaged the adjusted unit rates ($195.5/m2) and applied that to the subject area to assess the prevailing market rent at $55,900 per month exclusive of rates and management charges.

  • 21 May 2001

    Noble Resources Ltd. v. Golden Code Development Ltd.

    Citation
    Noble Resources Ltd. v. Golden Code Development Ltd.
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT298/2000

    The Tribunal declined to place weight on the respondent's untested surveyor's report and preferred the qualified valuer's evidence (Mr. Cullen) where it was supported by professional qualifications and testing; accordingly the market rent was fixed at $72,000 per month and a two-year tenancy was granted from 1.9.2000 to 31.8.2002.

  • 5 Mar 2001

    A. N. Forsyth v. Banbury Investments Ltd.

    Citation
    A. N. Forsyth v. Banbury Investments Ltd.
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT306/2000

    Because the respondent had expressly consented at the original hearing to the grant of a one‑year tenancy and thereby was bound by that consent, the respondent's application to file opposition and to dismiss the applicant's application was dismissed; the Tribunal admitted new rental evidence under s11A(4) and, after making adjustments to the comparables for car parking, roof (10%), time, rates and management fees, fixed the prevailing market rent for Flat E3 at $20,600 per month exclusive of rates and management fee.

  • 28 Sept 2000

    Adrian King and Another v. Double Crown Ltd.

    Citation
    Adrian King and Another v. Double Crown Ltd.
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT383/1999

    Using the direct comparison method the Tribunal treated Flats 1A and 1B as the best comparables, time-adjusted their average passing rent, applied a combined adjustment of -15% for lack of appliances and poor internal condition, and determined the prevailing market rent as $22,500 per month exclusive as at 30 November 1999; the Tribunal also reduced the tenant's break clause notice from 3 to 2 months based on prior terms and market practice.

  • 25 Aug 2000

    Andor Hampala v. Nice Holdings Ltd.

    Citation
    Andor Hampala v. Nice Holdings Ltd.
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT73/2000

    The Tribunal adopted the direct comparison method, preferred certain adjustments proposed by the applicant's valuer (notably time adjustments via Jones Lang LaSalle index, floor and size adjustments, and internal condition allowances), accepted the Rating & Valuation Department area for roof, treated the car parking as equivalent to a normal covered car park ($2,000/month), adopted an average adjusted unit rate of $166/sq.m applied to an equivalent area of 200.56 sq.m, deducted $363 for air‑conditioning allowance, fixed the prevailing market rent at $33,000 per month (exclusive of rates and m…