Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 58 conveyancing and property ordinance

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2024

AHN, EUNSUN v. WO KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 25
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD152/2024

Applicant failed to serve a valid notice under section 58(1) CPO specifying the particular breach and requiring remedy; even if a valid notice had been served the breach alleged was capable of remedy and the Tribunal would, in the exercise of its discretion under section 58(2), have granted relief from forfeiture; accordingly no cause of action for forfeiture had accrued and the application for recovery of possession is dismissed.
13 Sept 2017

PERRINE CHAMONIX LTD v. STAR LEAGUE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PERRINE CHAMONIX LTD v. STAR LEAGUE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1139/2017

The Plaintiff was awarded costs because it obtained substantially what it sought (cessation of the brothel and undertakings) and the 1st Defendant had no credible defence and acted unreasonably and belatedly in terminating the lease; therefore costs follow the event and justice required costs in favour of the Plaintiff; costs were summarily assessed at HK$280,000.
23 Dec 2013

MUTUALBEST LTD v. NGAI WAH KIT

Citation

MUTUALBEST LTD v. NGAI WAH KIT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1548/2013

Judge found on balance of probabilities that respondent ran a guesthouse in breach of Clause 1 Schedule II and Clause 3, rejected respondent's evidence of landlord consent and estoppel, and held that because parting with possession could be remediable (per Akici) the Section 58(1) notice failed to specify a reasonable time to remedy; therefore the notice was invalid and no right to forfeiture had accrued, so the possession application failed.
25 Aug 2009

MASTER YIELD LTD v. HO KAN BAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

MASTER YIELD LTD v. HO KAN BAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA866/2008

The Master was correct to grant summary judgment on the counterclaim except that the tenancy agreement and its forfeiture clauses require credit for the forfeited deposit against the landlord's monetary claims; section 58 did not prevent forfeiture; express contractual prohibition precluded equitable set-off; but because the plaintiff's misrepresentation claim is closely connected to the tenancy contract, execution of the judgment on the counterclaim should be stayed pending trial of the plaintiff's claim.
2 May 1986

LO SUN KIU v. YU KUK

Citation

LO SUN KIU v. YU KUK
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPA4/1986

Under Part I of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, orders for possession can only be obtained on the statutory grounds set out in Part I (including s33); Part I contains no requirement for prior notice to quit or notice under s58 CPO and s58(14) renders s58 inapplicable to Part I proceedings; accordingly the applicant was entitled to possession and arrears on the statutory grounds proved.

Hong Kong Case Law

AHN, EUNSUN v. WO KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER

PERRINE CHAMONIX LTD v. STAR LEAGUE LTD AND ANOTHER

MUTUALBEST LTD v. NGAI WAH KIT

MASTER YIELD LTD v. HO KAN BAU AND ANOTHER

LO SUN KIU v. YU KUK