Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Possession/recovery of premises

  • 7 Jun 2021

    HONG KONG HOUSING SOCIETY 對 LEUNG HING YIU

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 580
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1724/2020

    Applicant's request to be joined and his appeal were dismissed because the operative tenancy terminated on the prior tenant's death, the applicant had no independent legal right to occupy the unit (at best a license which ended on death), his proposed judicial review route was inappropriate and time-barred so prospects of success were negligible, the late appeal could not be extended for lack of merit, and a stay would prejudice the public interest in recovery and reallocation of public housing.

  • 12 Sept 2018

    黃玉麟 對 香港房屋委員會及另一人

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 593
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV160/2017

    The Court refused out‑of‑time permission to appeal because the proposed appeal was without merit and did not raise questions of wide public importance as required by the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; the Housing Authority lawfully repossessed the unit under the Housing Ordinance and was entitled to charge for recovery/storage costs, so the applicant's claims of obstruction and entitlement to unconditional return of seized items failed; consequentially the interim relief application could not succeed.

  • 26 Sept 2014

    莫如樂 對 林明昌及另一人

    Citation
    莫如樂 對 林明昌及另一人
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD1589/2014

    The tribunal found on the evidence that the applicant’s parents had historically entrusted rent management to the Mo couple and the applicant knew of and did not object to that arrangement before 2 July 2013; that conduct put the Mo couple in a position of apparent authority such that the second respondent was entitled to rely on their authority when taking the tenancy and paying rent; tenancy-by-estoppel principles prevent the tenant from denying the landlord’s title in these circumstances; accordingly the second respondent lawfully holds the premises and the applicant’s repossession and arr…

  • 10 Sept 2014

    莫如樂 對 佔用人(黃文康)

    Citation
    莫如樂 對 佔用人(黃文康)
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD1591/2014

    The tribunal found the review had no reasonable prospect of success: respondent established occupation and a tenancy by estoppel through course of dealings and payment records; apparent authority existed because the owner permitted family members/agents to handle the tenancy and attachment one was admissible and corroborated by witness evidence; unstamped or copied documents were admissible under s10(6) with weight for the tribunal to assess; therefore the original decision stands and the review is dismissed.