Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Tenancy agreements

  • 10 Feb 2026

    TRILLION JOYFUL LTD v. SUNNIX INTERNATIONAL LTD

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 850
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1149/2022

    The Vendor failed to show a good title before completion because the Rider only covered governmental enforcement risk and did not address the separate real risks arising from the Rear/Side Shop being formed from an external wall (common part) and possible breaches of Clause 8 of the DMC; the Vendor also failed to produce the original/certified copy of the Cockloft tenancy; those failures meant a real risk remained and the Vendor breached the PSPA repudiatorily, entitling the Purchaser to terminate, return of deposits, damages, equitable remedies and costs.

  • 4 Feb 2026

    PAKATOWER LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TRANSPORT CITY BUILDING

    Citation
    [2026] HKLdT 6
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDBM75/2019

    The Tribunal rejected Cheung's DRC assessment as fundamentally flawed in principle and application for valuing discrete utility rooms within a multi-storey building because it estimated replacement cost for the whole building and improperly apportioned unit costs; the Last IO Tenancy Agreement, covering the identical premises and bundle of non-cash entitlements, was the best and preferred comparable for assessing mesne profits (adjusted by published rental indices); accordingly the mesne profits assessment in the judgment stands. Separately, withholding duplicate gate keys that in practice de…

  • 16 Jan 2026

    程馬添 對 黃茗珠

    Citation
    [2026] HKLdT 3
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD1526/2025

    The Tribunal held that the fixed-term lease expired on 17 November 2025; upon expiry the landlord as registered proprietor is entitled to vacant possession of the land including buildings and crops; the tenant's age, illness or literacy do not invalidate the lease or prevent recovery; no compensation or reason is required for repossession of a tenancy entered into after 9 July 2004.

  • 10 Apr 2024

    WANG SHUAI v. ZHANG QIAOHUI

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 304
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV275/2023

    The subject warranties that no tenancies existed were clear representations of existing fact at the date of the SPA; those warranties were breached because the tenancies pre‑dated the SPA, preventing fulfilment of the conditions precedent in Clauses 2.1.5/2.1.6; Clauses 2.4 and 2.5 do not permit remediation of pre‑existing breaches so as to defeat rescission; the defendant failed to raise a triable issue or adduce admissible evidence to the contrary; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and summary judgment stands.

  • 27 Mar 2024

    CHOY HON KI AND ANOTHER v. 林家強

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 432
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ631/2018

    On the balance of evidence the Court found the Two Tenancies related to Lot 1919 (named 龍仔水田), Lam Senior was tenant under those tenancies and his successors (including Defendant) occupied as tenants with rent paid up to 29 December 2016; Defendant failed to prove adverse possession or the requisite intention to possess, the 12-year limitation period had not expired before Plaintiffs commenced proceedings, and therefore Plaintiffs were entitled to possession, arrears and mesne profits; Defendant's counterclaim for adverse possession was dismissed.

  • 19 Dec 2019

    NG WOON KING v. CHENG KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2019] HKDC 1662
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2235/2017

    The defendants published the letters to a third party (the tenant) which, read in context, imputed that the plaintiff had acted illegally in relation to the Tenancy Agreement; the imputation was defamatory; justification and fair comment failed on the facts; occasion of publication was prima facie privileged but privilege was defeated by malice because defendants did not believe the imputations and used the letters to pressure the plaintiff to sell; defendants therefore liable in libel and plaintiff awarded HKD 70,000 general and HKD 50,000 aggravated damages plus interest and costs.

  • 18 Sept 2019

    MASTER UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2323
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1850/2015

    Consolidation of all five actions with a single set of pleadings was refused; the court found the tenancy/third‑party actions (TA Actions: HCA1295/2015, HCA1849/2015, HCA1850/2015) and adverse possession actions (AP Actions: severed parts of HCA691/2015 and HCA694/2015) are distinct and severable; ordered the AP issues severed and stayed the tenancy issues in HCA691/694 without prejudice to claims in the TA Actions; designated leading actions for each stream, directed unified management and trial before the same judge, allowed third parties to participate on liability in the TA Actions, refus…

  • 18 Sept 2019

    MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. 東源大地有限公司 AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2323
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA694/2015

    Consolidation of all five actions was refused. The court held the tenancy/third party actions (HCA 1295/2015, HCA 1849/2015 and HCA 1850/2015) should be heard together as the TA Actions with HCA 1295 as the leading TA Action; the adverse possession components of HCA 691/2015 and HCA 694/2015 are severable and will form the AP Actions with HCA 691 as the leading AP Action; the tenancy-related parts of HCA 691 and HCA 694 are stayed without prejudice to claims in the TA Actions; existing pleadings not expunged; third party defendants (former solicitors) may participate in the TA Actions on liab…

  • 31 May 2016

    CHEUNG HING v. WAH FUNG FOREST RESOURCES LTD

    Citation
    CHEUNG HING v. WAH FUNG FOREST RESOURCES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2433/2012

    The Court granted leave to bring a statutory derivative action limited to declarations that there was no HK$20,000,000 debt or valid set‑off (paragraphs 2(b)(i) and (ii)) because there was sufficient prima facie material and it was in the company's interest; the Court refused leave to set aside all Jinrong tenancy agreements as shams and refused leave for vacant possession, mesne profits and damages against occupiers due to insufficient material; the application for indemnification of future costs was adjourned sine die; costs of the leave application were ordered against the intervener, Mr W…

  • 20 Oct 2014

    WOO HOI LUN AND OTHERS v. LAI YUNG

    Citation
    WOO HOI LUN AND OTHERS v. LAI YUNG
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2312/2012

    The defendant failed to prove animus possidendi because the weight of evidence established she paid rent to the plaintiffs' predecessors and to agents from 1971 to 2005, accepted and relied on a tenancy agreement in 2005 and surrendered Land B; contemporaneous recorded admissions corroborated payments; therefore possession was under the plaintiffs' title and adverse possession was not established; counterclaim dismissed and plaintiffs entitled to vacant possession, mesne profits and costs.