Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Primary user determination

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 1985

WONG YIP v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG YIP v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA1/1985

On the facts the Tribunal found the premises to be used primarily for human habitation: after inspecting and reallocating areas to reflect evening residential use, furnishings and limited business income, domestic use exceeded non-domestic use (majority on the balance of probabilities), therefore the premises are domestic and within Part I of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance.
22 Mar 1984

MEE SUN CHEONG v. SUN KEE

Citation

MEE SUN CHEONG v. SUN KEE
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA8/1984

The Commissioner issued the Part I Certificate without jurisdiction because the respondent was a sub-tenant and s7A expressly excludes sub-tenants and premises subject to sub-tenancy from applying; accordingly the Certificate is a nullity and must be quashed. Although the Tribunal would, on the evidence, regard the primary user as domestic, it will not make a binding order on user when the Commissioner's certificate was issued without jurisdiction.
12 Apr 1983

FOOK LUEN WAH DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

FOOK LUEN WAH DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA4/1983

The Commissioner's certificate that primary user was domestic, founded on inspection evidence (domestic furnishings and ten occupants), constituted prima facie proof; the appellant failed to produce contemporaneous or contradicting evidence despite opportunities (including landlord inspection rights) and thus did not rebut the certificate, so the certificate was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
24 Sept 1971

MABEL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM SIU KAN

Citation

MABEL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM SIU KAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1664/1970

The court found the primary user to be domestic because the family lived in the premises with kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms, the office use was secondary, the Occupation Permit indicated domestic use and the Commissioner’s certificate recorded domestic primary user; therefore the tenancy is a domestic tenancy protected by the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance and the plaintiff’s claim for possession failed.

Hong Kong Case Law

WONG YIP v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER

MEE SUN CHEONG v. SUN KEE

FOOK LUEN WAH DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER

MABEL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM SIU KAN