Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rent review

Legal area

Court

1 Sept 2014

HAU GAY YAU v. WONG MUK DIN

Citation

HAU GAY YAU v. WONG MUK DIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2014

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in finding the NTQ ineffective for non‑compliance with s.62 CPO because s.62(2)–(4) are supplementary and do not displace common law modes of service; evidence showed the solicitors acted for the defendant and received the NTQ as agent, and a notice should be construed so as to be effectual to a reasonable recipient. The judge's order was set aside and limited issues (rent review mechanism and plaintiff's standing/joining of co‑executrix) were remitted for retrial; costs of the appeal ordered nisi against the defendant.
22 Nov 2004

LAM KIN SUM v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

LAM KIN SUM v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2003

Section 16(1A) of the Housing Ordinance limits frequency and caps increases when a variation occurs but does not impose a duty to conduct rent reviews every three years; the HA's 31 October 2002 decision to defer/waive reviews was not a "determination of variation" under s16(1A)(a); no clear and unambiguous representation founded a legitimate expectation of triennial reviews tied to a mandatory 10% MRIR cap; appeals allowed and lower court orders set aside.
22 Nov 2004

LAM KIN SUM v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

LAM KIN SUM v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV251/2003

Section 16(1A) must be read as restricting the effect of actual rent variations (changes) — not as imposing a duty to review or as treating deferrals/freezes as variations; the Ordinance does not require the Housing Authority to conduct rent reviews every three years nor to ensure overall MRIR is at or below 10%; there was no clear, unambiguous legitimate expectation of triennial reviews tied to a 10% ceiling; accordingly the appeals were allowed and the High Court orders set aside.
10 Sept 2003

HAU GAY YAU v. WONG MUK DIN

Citation

HAU GAY YAU v. WONG MUK DIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ777/2002

On the balance of probabilities the court found the written lease did not govern the parties' legal relationship; the plaintiff had given oral assurances that the defendant could occupy and invest for a substantial period and is estopped from enforcing the two-year written lease without compensation; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for possession was dismissed.
11 Jul 2003

LAM KIN SUM v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

LAM KIN SUM v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL198/2002

The court held that a 'determination of variation of rent' in s.16(1A) is properly understood as a determination to vary rent (an actual variation), not merely a decision to freeze or defer review; however, read in context with the Authority's consistent past practice and the statutory scheme, s.16(1A) implies a duty on the Housing Authority to review rents regularly (triennially after the 1997 amendment) and that duty operates irrespective of inflation or deflation; therefore the Authority's failure to conduct required reviews where the median rent to income ratio exceeded the 10% statutory…
11 Jul 2003

HO CHOI WAN v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

HO CHOI WAN v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL174/2002

The court allowed the applications: a decision to freeze/defer rent is not a "determination of variation of rent" under s.16(1A), but s.16(1A) read in context and combined with the Authority's consistent past practice imposes a duty to review rents on a regular cycle (triennial after the 1997 amendment); that statutory-context duty and corresponding legitimate expectation were breached by failure to review despite the median rent-to-income ratio exceeding 10%, entitling applicants to relief.
12 Sept 1990

KALEY LTD v. THE HONG KONG LAND PROPERTY CO LTD

Citation

KALEY LTD v. THE HONG KONG LAND PROPERTY CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/1990

The Court held that clause 2(e) is to be construed such that the surveyor must determine the open market rent by reference to the start of the Rent Review Period (the First day of June), and therefore the judge below was correct; the appeal is dismissed.
12 Mar 1990

KALEY LTD. v. THE HONG KONG LAND PROPERTY CO. LTD.

Citation

KALEY LTD. v. THE HONG KONG LAND PROPERTY CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1953/1989

The court construed the rent review clause to require the surveyor to value the open market rent as at the commencement of the Rent Review Period (1 June 1989). The surveyor may consider events before and after that date only insofar as they provide relevant evidence as to what the market value was at that commencement date; he must perform the valuation as an expert under the lease assumptions and disregards.
3 Apr 1987

THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HUNG PUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HUNG PUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA403/1986

The exchange of letters constituted a concluded agreement for a reviewed rent of $120,000 per month; the words 'Subject to contract' in the plaintiff's acceptance were meaningless in the context and/or were expunged by the parties' subsequent conduct, so judgment is entered for the plaintiff for arrears of rent and mesne profits.