Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonable requirement for occupation

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 1983

WONG CHOR WAN v. MADAM YUEN YAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG CHOR WAN v. MADAM YUEN YAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV3/1983

The Court upheld the finding that the plaintiff had a bona fide present requirement for possession under s.53(2)(b); held that expiry of the fixed term did not create an automatic periodic tenancy but an indefinite tenancy (so no notice to quit was required in the circumstances), and held that the 2nd defendant's application under s.8(4) to have the presiding officer hear an appeal against his own decision was misconceived and frivolous so that costs should have followed the event.
8 Feb 1983

WONG CHOR WAN v. YUEN YAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG CHOR WAN v. YUEN YAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/1983

The plaintiff legitimately established a reasonable requirement for possession under S.53(2)(b); when a fixed term tenancy expires an indefinite monthly tenancy continues rather than automatically creating a periodic tenancy under S.52(1); the 2nd defendant's application under S.8(4) to have the presiding officer hear an appeal against his own decision was misconceived and frivolous, so costs should follow the event.
4 Aug 1982

WONG YEE-CHOR AND ANOTHER v. LAM NGAN-ON

Citation

WONG YEE-CHOR AND ANOTHER v. LAM NGAN-ON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2812/1982

Plaintiffs demonstrated a genuine and present need and reasonable requirement to occupy the suit premises; accordingly an order for possession and mesne profits was granted.
29 Jun 1982

WONG CHI-SHING v. CHEUNG CHOI-LEE

Citation

WONG CHI-SHING v. CHEUNG CHOI-LEE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5109/1981

The plaintiff failed to prove he reasonably required the premises for his own occupation; alternatively, even assuming he did, the defendant discharged the heavy burden under the proviso by showing that making an order would be manifestly unjust given prolonged occupation by multiple persons and resultant severe hardship to them, including lawful sub-tenants who must be considered and given opportunity to be heard.
13 May 1982

WONG CHUN MING v. CHOY TAI TUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG CHUN MING v. CHOY TAI TUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/1982

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing properly to consider whether the plaintiff had established a reasonable requirement for the suit premises and misapplied the test for whether an order would be manifestly unjust or inequitable; those errors required that the appeal be allowed and a new trial ordered on the issues of reasonable requirement and manifest injustice.
28 Aug 1981

WONG TSUN v. CHEUNG YAN LOI

Citation

WONG TSUN v. CHEUNG YAN LOI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1077/1981

Plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable requirement for the suit premises for his elderly mother and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving that it would manifestly not be just and equitable to grant possession; accordingly possession was ordered, mesne profits awarded, costs to the plaintiff, and a six‑month stay granted.
21 Jul 1981

HO CHEUNG HING v. LI TAT CHI

Citation

HO CHEUNG HING v. LI TAT CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/1981

The trial judge's finding that the plaintiff did not reasonably require the premises was suspect on the record; because the issue of reasonable requirement and the discretionary just-and-equitable assessment were inadequately resolved and material fresh evidence (respondent's tuberculosis diagnosis) had emerged, the proper course was to allow the appeal and remit the matter for re-trial to consider all evidence.
4 Jun 1981

HASSAN SADEE LAI HOP SIU v. CHUNG LAI-CHEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HASSAN SADEE LAI HOP SIU v. CHUNG LAI-CHEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ944/1980

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff gave oral permission to sublet in 1971 and had full knowledge and acquiescence in the subsequent sublettings, so the first two statutory grounds fail; although the plaintiff reasonably requires the premises, eviction would be manifestly unjust given the hardship to numerous lawful sub-tenants, and the counterclaim for rectification fails for lack of convincing proof that the written agreements were contrary to the parties' intentions. Therefore the claim and counterclaim are dismissed.
10 Nov 1980

LEUNG LAI-PING v. WEN SAU-CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG LAI-PING v. WEN SAU-CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2214/1980

Plaintiff proved reasonable requirement for occupation, but defendants discharged the shifted onus by proving on the balance of probabilities that, given the number of occupants, lack of alternative accommodation, relative financial positions and family circumstances, it would be thoroughly unjust to order possession; therefore claim dismissed.
15 Oct 1980

CHOW WING v. YUEN CHI-HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHOW WING v. YUEN CHI-HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV145/1980

The tenant must prove on the civil standard that, considering all circumstances, it would be thoroughly unjust to make an order for possession under s53(2)(b)(i); if the tenant only shows the merits are evenly balanced the tenant has not discharged the burden and the possession order should follow once the landlord proves reasonable requirement.