Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Occupational rent

  • 31 Jan 2024

    黃堅華 對 袁桂馨及另二人

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 188
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6050/2018

    Court found plaintiff failed to prove the tenancy was a sham; the written tenancy was a genuine agreement affecting only the first defendant's share; the tenancy was not registered but that did not defeat plaintiff as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; however the effect of the tenancy and subsequent transfer was to exclude the plaintiff from possession of his half share (ouster), entitling the plaintiff to occupational rent from 15 March 2018, apportioned and ordered against the defendants as found and calculated in the judgment.

  • 6 Aug 2009

    RE TYL

    Citation
    RE TYL
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1840/2006

    Madam Mak's unauthorised occupation of TYL's flat and her personal benefit from related transactions created a serious conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duties and the rule against profit; accordingly she could no longer act as committee, the Official Solicitor was appointed as replacement and authorised to sell the property, and interim measures (three months to vacate and a HKD 16,000 monthly occupational rent) were imposed to protect TYL's interests.

  • 15 Jan 2004

    CHIN LAN HONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG POH CHOO AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHIN LAN HONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG POH CHOO AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1208/2000

    Court found the 1982 assignment did not defeat the Father’s beneficial life interest; the 1st Defendant occupied as the Father’s licensee (not exercising exclusive possession) and that licence was not effectively revoked by the Plaintiffs’ notice and only terminated on the Father’s death; administrators of the one‑fifth share could lawfully authorise non‑exclusive occupation only after reseal of foreign letters of administration (11 Oct 2000); therefore trespass occurred only for the nine days between the Father’s death (2 Oct 2000) and reseal (11 Oct 2000), damages were assessed at HKD 36,81…

  • 30 Jun 2001

    Yau Fook Hong Co. Ltd. v. Chan Yu Ming

    Citation
    Yau Fook Hong Co. Ltd. v. Chan Yu Ming
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA7521/1997

    In the absence of evidence of resale efforts the court fixed the assessment date as 26 February 1998 (date vacant possession was obtained), accepted a median open market value of HK$605,000 and calculated a deficiency of HK$264,850, but declined to finally determine the plaintiff's quantum of damages because claims on forfeiture of deposit and instalments remained unresolved and clause 20 may bar recovery of deficiency if resale did not occur within six months.