Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rent determination

Legal area

Court

6 Jul 2004

CHANG YING v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD

Citation

CHANG YING v. HUNG FAT CHEUNG INVESTORS LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT9/2004

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's redevelopment intention as sufficiently credible on available evidence but held that applicants should not be required to vacate before the effective termination dates of ground floor tenancies; therefore granted tenancies for all five applicants from 1 February 2004 to 31 July 2005, fixed monthly rents for LDNT 8/2004 at HKD 14,000 and LDNT 10/2004 at HKD 10,000 exclusive of management fee, rates and government rent, left other tenancy conditions unchanged, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
26 Jun 2003

MAXSON SERVICES LTD v. EVER CONCORD INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

MAXSON SERVICES LTD v. EVER CONCORD INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMP5/2003

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s.119NA because although notice under s.119(1) had been given, the statutory precondition that the Tribunal does not make an order for the grant of a new tenancy had not arisen—the Tribunal was never given the opportunity to refuse such an order—therefore s.119NA did not apply and the Tribunal must dismiss the application; costs withheld pursuant to s.119R as no party acted frivolously or vexatiously.
29 Jan 2003

Susan Q. Clavano v. Right Line Co. Ltd.

Citation

Susan Q. Clavano v. Right Line Co. Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT214/2002

The Tribunal accepted Rating & Valuation Department transaction comparables as unbiased, ranked the six comparables against the subject premises by unit rent, floor and time, concluded the subject premises should rank after Comparable 1 and fixed the new rent at HK$6,000 per month inclusive of rates and management fees.
22 Oct 2002

Manchu Hong Kong Ltd. v. Lau E-Yan Betty

Citation

Manchu Hong Kong Ltd. v. Lau E-Yan Betty
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT381/2001

The Tribunal excluded House 39D as a comparable due to its exceptionally long marketing period and lease date being 9 months after the relevant commencement, applied specified percentage adjustments to six acceptable comparables, averaged the adjusted effective unit rents, applied the subject effective area (279.8 sq.m.) and fixed the new rent at $104,500 per month exclusive of rates, management fees and government rent; a two-year tenancy from 19 Nov 2001 was ordered with deposit adjusted and other prior terms retained save condition 12, with no order as to costs.
20 Mar 2001

Abdoolally Ebrahim & Co. (H. K.) Ltd. v. Formalex Ltd.

Citation

Abdoolally Ebrahim & Co. (H. K.) Ltd. v. Formalex Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT43/2000

The District Court claim for repair costs was not sufficiently relevant to the Tribunal's statutory task of determining the commencement date, duration, terms and prevailing market rent of the new tenancy; the District Court outcome is not binding on the Tribunal and, because it is uncertain whether the disputed lease clauses will be incorporated into the new tenancy or whether the commencement date will be after the disputed repairs, the Tribunal must not delay fixing hearing dates pending the District Court judgment.
7 Aug 2000

Sogelease Hong Kong Ltd. v. Vaucluse Ltd.

Citation

Sogelease Hong Kong Ltd. v. Vaucluse Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT184/2000

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's expert valuation (Exhibit R1), gave decisive weight to Comparable Nos.3 and 4 for being similar in locality, size and design, accepted the adjusted unit rates and the adopted rate of $350 per sq.m., and held that the proper monthly rent for the new 2-year tenancy commencing 1 June 2000 is $85,000.
4 Dec 1998

Ng Chiu Yuen Jacob v. Lam Che Cheung

Citation

Ng Chiu Yuen Jacob v. Lam Che Cheung
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV242/1998

Appeal dismissed because the complaints were disputes of fact and no point of law was raised; under s.68A the Court has jurisdiction only to hear appeals raising errors of law and therefore cannot interfere.
29 Nov 1994

CITY POLYTECHNIC OF HONG KONG v. PENTIMONT LTD.

Citation

CITY POLYTECHNIC OF HONG KONG v. PENTIMONT LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1977/1994

On the evidence the best comparable was Flat 7B which let at $60,000 in April 1994; the respondent's large upward adjustments were exaggerated. Accounting for the subject flat's superiority and the appropriate value for an extra car park ($2,500 per month), the Tribunal fixed the prevailing market rent at $72,500 per month and ordered a new two-year tenancy from 1 June 1994 at that rent.
15 May 1985

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD v. WHARF PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD v. WHARF PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA50/1985

Fix rents on the same basis as other lettings in the Harbour City development (inclusive of airconditioning, water heating and management charges); do not make deductions for defects that are common to the comparables; prefer more recent comparables for date relevance; apply slight differentiation between blocks (Craigie Court marginally superior) and set specified unit rates and monthly rents for each flat.
14 Jun 1984

MAMIE DUNN v. NEW ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

MAMIE DUNN v. NEW ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA104/1984

Because the respondent did not oppose and the Tribunal could take judicial notice of recent negotiated rents for comparable flats in the same building (e.g. $13,291 and $14,400 pcm shown in L.T. 88 of 1984), the Tribunal fixed the new rent at $14,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates and ordered a 3-year tenancy from 1 April 1984.