Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession for non-payment of rent

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2004

SPRING ENOUGH LTD v. LIMBU CHANDRAKALA

Citation

SPRING ENOUGH LTD v. LIMBU CHANDRAKALA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/2004

The Court refused to interfere with Yeung JA's discretionary order for security for costs of HK$3,000 because the amount was not excessive given likely appeal costs; possession having been recovered did not warrant release of the security while the appeal remained pending; accordingly the tenant's appeal against the security order and the landlord's application for release were both dismissed.
9 Jul 1998

TINDIXS SERVICES LTD. v. CHENG WING CHUN

Citation

TINDIXS SERVICES LTD. v. CHENG WING CHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV106/1998

Personal service on 11 September made the default judgment regular; though s.21F does not prevent entry of final judgment it mandates that any possession order must provide a period of not less than four weeks for the lessee to pay into court; accordingly the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, restored the earlier order and required the judgment to be amended to comply with s.21F(3).
11 Mar 1998

CHRISTIAN ANTHONY BULLEN v. TAM YEE NI

Citation

CHRISTIAN ANTHONY BULLEN v. TAM YEE NI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV14/1998

The Court of Appeal held that the provision in the Supreme Court Ordinance (s.F(3)(b)/s.21F) is mandatory, not procedural or discretionary, and that by s.10(1) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance the Lands Tribunal must exercise that mandatory power when making an order for possession for non-payment of rent; failure to provide the statutory period and opportunity to pay and reinstate renders the possession order invalid, and the Lands Tribunal's possession order of 10 December 1997 was set aside.
23 Sept 1997

LEUNG WAH FUNG v. WONG TAK SHING

Citation

LEUNG WAH FUNG v. WONG TAK SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV117/1997

The Court held that Judge Kwan did not err in accepting the Lands Tribunal's confirmation of the permitted rent increase; the Notice of Interim Valuation was a rateable value assessment and did not demonstrate that the Lands Tribunal's market rent determination was wrong; no error of law under s.68A was established, therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

SPRING ENOUGH LTD v. LIMBU CHANDRAKALA

TINDIXS SERVICES LTD. v. CHENG WING CHUN

CHRISTIAN ANTHONY BULLEN v. TAM YEE NI

LEUNG WAH FUNG v. WONG TAK SHING