Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Statutory continuance

  • 24 Apr 1986

    MOK YEE WAN v. TAIPAN AGENCIES LTD. AND OTHERS

    Citation
    MOK YEE WAN v. TAIPAN AGENCIES LTD. AND OTHERS
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLA1626/1985

    The Tribunal held the 1 Oct 1983 tenancy was validly a Part IV tenancy because the prior Part II tenancy was surrendered on 30 Sep 1983 without need for Commissioner approval; Taipan's Section 117 application was not lawfully entertainable under Section 119D and therefore did not create statutory continuance under Section 119N; Taipan breached the tenancy by late/non-payment and forfeiture arose without requirement of notice; sub-tenants breached the statutory condition in s.119P; mesne profits awarded at market rent of HKD 15,000 per month from 1 Oct 1985 until delivery of vacant possession.

  • 6 Sept 1983

    ROGER KING v. LUKE HIM SAU

    Citation
    ROGER KING v. LUKE HIM SAU
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLA41/1983

    Applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving cogent reasons to vary the prior tenancy by inserting a tenant-only break clause; the prior agreement did not grant the tenant an enforceable right to continue as a monthly tenant; accordingly the Tribunal refused the break clause and, on agreed and adjusted valuation evidence, fixed the prevailing market rent at $23,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates and ordered a new 2 year tenancy from 1 July 1983 on the same terms as the prior agreement.

  • 29 Jan 1982

    CHAN PAK WAI v. THOMAS YOUNG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHAN PAK WAI v. THOMAS YOUNG AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ9443/1981

    The amended s.53(2)(e) must be read to extend contractual terms into the period of statutory continuance so that a landlord's statutory right to possession accrues only where the tenant's subletting breached the prior contractual tenancy; because the pleaded tenancy did not prohibit subletting there was no breach and no cause of action under s.53(2)(e), so the amended particulars of claim were struck out.

  • 20 Jan 1982

    LEUNG WAI HAN v. LAU FING YING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LEUNG WAI HAN v. LAU FING YING AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3700/1981

    Sections 52(1) and 53(1) must be read literally: for periodic tenancies the tenancy cannot end by effluxion of time so it must be terminated by the landlord; the common law method of termination of a periodic tenancy is by notice to quit; consequently a valid notice to quit must be served and its period must expire before proceedings under s.53(2) can be commenced, and until then no cause of action arises for possession under s.53(2).