Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oral tenancy

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2022

WU KAI WAI AND OTHERS v. Occupants of Lot No.316 in D.D. 128, Yuen Long, New Territories AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 253
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3740/2017

Having considered the parties' conduct and the extent of success, the court varied the order nisi and ordered the 2nd defendant to pay 60% of the costs of the 1st to 6th plaintiffs of the action, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed; and ordered the 2nd defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by the application.
23 Jan 2020

LEUNG KIU YIP (梁橋葉) 及另一人對 KWAN WA OI (關華靄), Administratrix of the Estate of Yip Shik Pui（葉錫培），deceased

Citation

[2020] HKDC 74
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3728/2014

The court accepted the contemporaneous rent book, supporting documents from prior proceedings and credible witness evidence as proving an annual oral tenancy; accordingly the defendant failed to establish the requisite exclusive intention for adverse possession and the plaintiff was entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits at HKD1,500 per year from 1 January 2014.
17 Dec 2013

溢寶有限公司對謝雄光

Citation

溢寶有限公司對謝雄光
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2578/2013

Applicant established registered ownership; the 2006 lease was a fixed two-year term ending 24/9/2008; the applicant validly terminated the subsequent oral monthly tenancy by the 14 May 2013 solicitor's notice effective 30/6/2013; respondent remained in possession and failed to pay mesne profits from 1/9/2013; accordingly possession and mesne profits were ordered, with suspended execution to 31/12/2013 conditional on payment of December 2013 mesne profit of HK$1,500.
17 Jun 2013

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD v. WING BO MOTOR CO(a firm)

Citation

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD v. WING BO MOTOR CO(a firm)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3507/2008

The applications were dismissed because the grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the documentary evidence was equivocal, the defendant failed to call the key witness to resolve inconsistencies, the burden to prove adverse possession lay on the defendant, and on the totality of evidence the 2002 tenancy was found to cover all houses and land; accordingly a stay was not warranted.
10 Jul 2012

蘇巧章對康有成

Citation

蘇巧章對康有成
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE444/2012

The tribunal held that the oral tenancy was valid under Cap.7, the respondent could not contest the applicant's title, forfeiture and possession were lawful after 15 days' non-payment under s126, unstamped oral agreements are not barred as evidence, and therefore the application for leave to appeal and stay had no reasonable prospect and was refused; the possession warrant may be enforced.
11 May 2009

TSANG WING KIT ERIC AND ANOTHER v. THE OCCUPIER(S) AND OTHERS

Citation

TSANG WING KIT ERIC AND ANOTHER v. THE OCCUPIER(S) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1154/2005

Court found on evidence that Plot 2 and Plot 3 formed the Subject Land and were leased to Luk Kee under an oral tenancy from 1982 which was terminated by notice effective 31 December 1994; accordingly limitation against the Plaintiff began at earliest 1 January 1995 (or after April 1998 when writ execution was resisted), the twelve year limitation applied, the Plaintiff's action of 3 June 2005 was within time, and the Defendants failed to prove exclusive adverse possession prior to the relevant dates, so Plaintiff was entitled to possession, nominal damages and costs.
10 Sept 2003

HAU GAY YAU v. WONG MUK DIN

Citation

HAU GAY YAU v. WONG MUK DIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ777/2002

On the balance of probabilities the court found the written lease did not govern the parties' legal relationship; the plaintiff had given oral assurances that the defendant could occupy and invest for a substantial period and is estopped from enforcing the two-year written lease without compensation; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for possession was dismissed.
21 Jun 2002

UNIJET LTD. v. YIU KWAI HOI

Citation

UNIJET LTD. v. YIU KWAI HOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13637/1998

Court found on facts the defendant occupied by licence and accepted an oral yearly tenancy in 1991 (so no animus possidendi); alternatively even if adverse possession existed, s.6 of the Extension Ordinance created a new/extended lease (a new source of title) enabling the plaintiff to commence possession proceedings and defeat any possessory title under Limitation principles as explained in Lam Island.
25 Jan 1999

LAI LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHAU WING

Citation

LAI LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHAU WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2119/1998

The tenancy became a monthly tenancy from 1 January 1994; the notice to quit served on 15 May 1997 complied with s122(3) Cap.7 and validly terminated the tenancy on 30 November 1997; subsequent acceptance/retention of the Defendant's payments did not evidence an intention by the Plaintiffs to create a new tenancy, so no tenancy by conduct arose; accordingly judgment for the Plaintiffs for possession, mesne profits, rates and costs was entered.
3 Aug 1983

LAU WING HO v. WONG HON YIN

Citation

LAU WING HO v. WONG HON YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1463/1983

Summary possession under Order 113 was refused because the plaintiffs' own affidavit evidence indicated the tenant or its agent continued in occupation and there was a genuine triable issue as to who was tenant; therefore the summary procedure was inappropriate and the matter must proceed to trial with appropriate directions including joinder and possible interim relief.