Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory notices

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2008

TOP TALENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TOP SYSTEM INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

TOP TALENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TOP SYSTEM INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2098/2006

The defendant breached the tenancy by failing to pay two quarters of government rates, failing to pay contractual interest, unlawfully parting with possession of parts of the premises to other corporations, and refusing landlord access to install a flushing-water meter; these breaches justified forfeiture and refusal of relief against forfeiture and refusal of the renewal option; plaintiff entitled to possession, assessed mesne profits and interest and costs as awarded.
13 Mar 1991

LEI SAU FONG v. TAI WAI YING

Citation

LEI SAU FONG v. TAI WAI YING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV95/1990

The prescribed Form CR105 on its face and in context unambiguously required the tenant to apply within two months; the explanatory note on the reverse was ambiguous and could not, clearly and unambiguously, give rise to an estoppel or waiver extending the statutory time limit, so the Tribunal should not have entertained the late application; appeal allowed.
26 Apr 1989

ASIA DYEING CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE AUTHORITY

Citation

ASIA DYEING CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP573/1989

The court held that notices issued under s.9 were valid despite the alternative wording because the notices were clearly aimed at an existing nuisance and any omission was one of particularity. Conversely, s.30 must be read in light of its enumerated grounds (a)-(d): "than need be" is governed by matters of chimney or plant suitability, construction, maintenance or wear, not by the Authority's unfettered value judgment about acceptable emissions; accordingly the Chairman erred in construing s.30 to allow prohibition based solely on the Authority's value judgment and his decision was quashed i…
29 Apr 1986

RE HO KING KWAN

Citation

RE HO KING KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP385/1986

The prior certificate of compliance did not create a legitimate expectation that the Building Authority would never thereafter enforce the Ordinance; the Building Authority's discretion to enforce protective regulations cannot be fettered by such a certificate, its decision was not irrational, and the applicant's unexplained delay was fatal to the claim; therefore the judicial review application failed.

Hong Kong Case Law

TOP TALENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TOP SYSTEM INVESTMENTS LTD

LEI SAU FONG v. TAI WAI YING

ASIA DYEING CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE AUTHORITY

RE HO KING KWAN