Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy agreement validity

Legal area

Court

31 Jan 2024

黃堅華對袁桂馨及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 188
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6050/2018

Court found plaintiff failed to prove the tenancy was a sham; the written tenancy was a genuine agreement affecting only the first defendant's share; the tenancy was not registered but that did not defeat plaintiff as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; however the effect of the tenancy and subsequent transfer was to exclude the plaintiff from possession of his half share (ouster), entitling the plaintiff to occupational rent from 15 March 2018, apportioned and ordered against the defendants as found and calculated in the judgment.
31 Dec 2020

WONG YIU SHEUNG SHIRLEY v. WHORRA, RAVEESH

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 61
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1456/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the Tenancy Agreement was held to be valid and stamped, the respondent had conceded at hearing that there was no binding agreement to apply the deposit as rent during the term, CR109 non‑compliance did not defeat the applicant's right to forfeit and seek possession and mesne profits, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success nor other interests of justice to justify leave.
24 Feb 2017

RISING DRAGON INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CHENG MEI LING

Citation

RISING DRAGON INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CHENG MEI LING
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD168/2017

The August Tenancy, entered into and acted upon by both parties from 18 August 2016, superseded and replaced the March Tenancy and is binding on the respondent; stamping anomalies do not resurrect the March Tenancy; respondent must deliver vacant possession and pay arrears under the August Tenancy subject to deduction of proven overpayments and may be relieved from forfeiture if all arrears are paid into the Tribunal by the specified date.
24 Nov 2005

SHUNG KING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. OPTICAL OUTLET (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

SHUNG KING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. OPTICAL OUTLET (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1287/2005

The Confirmation, containing all essential terms and signed by both parties, constituted a binding tenancy; the Defendant repudiated the tenancy by refusing to take possession and pay; the Defendant failed to show any credible triable defence (user, non‑tenancy, non‑delivery of possession, estoppel) and summary judgment was therefore appropriate for arrears (less deposit) with interlocutory judgment on loss to be assessed; limited amendments to pleadings allowed.
8 Aug 2001

NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV168/2001

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's factual findings that the questioned signature on the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was a forgery and that Wholesale Limited and Kwan perpetrated fraud; the trial judge was entitled to prefer the forensic expert (Mr Hung) and the respondents' witnesses, appellants failed to show the judge was wrong on the facts or that documentary/other incontrovertible evidence required a different conclusion, and indemnity costs were justified.
12 Jan 2001

NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA20335/1998

On the evidence the Court found the questioned signature on the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was not signed by Chung (forensic evidence showed hesitation, retouching and other indicia of forgery; the defence witness Kwan was not credible and his account inconsistent), therefore the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was null and void; consequently Wholesale Limited's claim was dismissed and the counterclaim for possession, declarations of forgery, injunctions, damages, indemnity and account of profits against Wholesale Limited and Kwan succeeded while the claim against Leung failed for insufficient evidence.
24 Feb 1982

POON SHU AND ANOTHER v. SO TSUI-SIM AND OTHERS

Citation

POON SHU AND ANOTHER v. SO TSUI-SIM AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ15109/1981

The District Judge set aside the earlier judgment because the plaintiffs' Rule 22 affidavit and exhibits were inadequate and ambiguous and because the premises may be governed by Part IV of Cap.7, such that the District Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction; consequently the appropriate remedy was to transfer the action to the High Court.

Hong Kong Case Law

黃堅華 對 袁桂馨及另二人

WONG YIU SHEUNG SHIRLEY v. WHORRA, RAVEESH

RISING DRAGON INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CHENG MEI LING

SHUNG KING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. OPTICAL OUTLET (HONG KONG) LTD

NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER

NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER

POON SHU AND ANOTHER v. SO TSUI-SIM AND OTHERS

黃堅華對袁桂馨及另二人