12 Mar 2021
Leave to appeal refused because the intended appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Tribunal's findings of fact were not perverse or irrational and were supported by evidence; estoppel by convention was not established even assuming substantial expenditure; stay of execution refused for lack of reasonable grounds; costs awarded to Applicant.
25 Mar 2020
There was no clear contemporaneous documentary or unequivocal representational evidence (including WhatsApp transcripts) that the plaintiff regarded the option as validly exercised or that both parties shared a common assumption; defendant therefore failed to establish estoppel by representation or estoppel by convention and the plaintiff demonstrated a high degree of assurance of success and that withholding relief would cause greater injustice; accordingly a mandatory interlocutory injunction for possession was granted.
2 Oct 2019
A reasonable recipient, informed of Clause 26 and the commercial context, would have objectively understood the 31 October 2017 email and its enclosures as a clear notice of intention not to renew on the pre-agreed terms; the notice satisfied the clause and there was no bona fide defence to defeat summary judgment, so the appeal was dismissed.
6 Jun 2017
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).
27 Aug 2015
The 2012 agreement is enforceable only as a two-year tenancy ending 30 June 2014; it contains no enforceable option to renew because the putative open term is uncertain, not incorporated, not properly exercised as a registrable or written equitable interest before the purchaser's acquisition, and post-expiry payments did not evidence mutual intention to create a new tenancy; respondent was a trespasser after 30 June 2014 and must pay mesne profits at HK$67,500 per month from 1 October 2014 until vacant possession; costs nisi awarded to applicant.
14 Apr 2014
Leave to appeal was granted only on the Land Registration Ordinance issue as reasonably arguable and limited to challenging the award for loss of rental income (item (c)) and the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim; leave was refused for the non-payment of rent ground; damages awarded for loss of goods and return of deposit (items (a) and (b)) stand because the defendant's forcible entry was unlawful and a possession order should have been sought.
4 May 2011
The court found that GSC was the disclosed master licensee authorised by Krizia and had appointed GSM as its authorised agent to grant sub-licences; the master licence included an irrevocable option which GSC validly exercised; the sub-licence was a complete written contract with no additional oral express or conditional terms; the deed constituted an original indemnity rendering Or primarily liable; Haixin Yu Gar breached the sub-licence by non-payment and is liable to GSM and GSC for US$125,000 and consequential loss of US$275,000 with interest and costs; counterclaim dismissed.
4 May 2011
GSC was the authorised master licensee and had validly authorised GSM to grant the sub‑licence; the sub‑licence was a written contract validly entered into by GSM with Haixin Yu Gar; the option to renew the master licence existed and was validly exercised by GSC; the deed created an original indemnity obligation on Or such that she is jointly and severally liable; accordingly plaintiffs (GSM and GSC) recover unpaid royalties and foreseeable consequential losses; defendants' counterclaim for rescission fails.
31 Jul 2008
Tenant lost the right to exercise the renewal option because, as at 31 July 2007, he was in arrears and had a persistent history of late payment amounting to failure of the condition precedent; additionally the tenant's pleaded denial of the landlord's title constituted repudiation fatal to the tenant's position; section 58 did not apply because the lease expired by effluxion of time once the option was lost. Therefore the landlord's Order 14 relief in paragraphs (1) and (4) succeeds.
31 Jul 2008
The tenant had failed to perform the stipulations required by clause 9 and was in arrears as at the 31 July 2007 deadline and therefore lost the right to exercise the option to renew; independently, the tenant's denial of the landlord's title amounted to repudiation which the landlord accepted; section 58 CPO did not apply because the lease expired by effluxion of time and the alleged breach only disqualified renewal, so landlord's Order 14 application is granted in part.