Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy termination

Legal area

Court

8 Jul 2025

潘定家 v. 上訴委員會(房屋)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2413
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL330/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success: the divorce order was not fresh or outcome‑determinative, the estate office representation did not negate the Applicant's responsibility to declare household members' property, the Appeal Panel had considered the Applicant's circumstances and credibility and there was no procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
17 May 2024

黃崇彰對上訴委員會(房屋)及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 439
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/2023

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because the points raised are fact-specific and do not amount to matters of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the applicant's other submissions do not constitute 'other reasons' warranting certification; costs are awarded to the respondent in the assessed sum of HKD 8,660.
2 Feb 2024

吳欽中 v. 房屋署

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL51/2024

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any public law grounds on Form 86 in breach of RHC Order 53 r 3(2), and in any event an adequate alternative remedy existed and had been pursued by appeal to the Appeal Panel (Housing).
30 Aug 2023

梁淑微對香港房屋委員會（房屋署）

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL537/2023

The applicant was in undisputed rent arrears and the lease together with s19(1)(b) of the Housing Ordinance entitled the Housing Authority to terminate the tenancy; the Appeal Committee lawfully exercised its discretion and the applicant failed to demonstrate arguable grounds for judicial review, therefore leave is refused.
21 Jun 2023

CHAN YAU LING v. HOUSING APPEAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL427/2023

Leave refused. Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: Tribunal had before it and considered the applicant's pandemic and schooling arguments; undisputed breach of tenancy was central; applicant elected to enter tenancy aware of residence obligation; no sufficiently arguable public law error or fettering to permit leave.
2 Sept 2022

林韋成對巿政服務上訴委員會

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1680/2020

The application for permission was refused because the proposed grounds were not arguable: no clear promise giving rise to legitimate expectation, the appeal tribunal gave adequate reasons and considered relevant factors, and the challenge amounted to an impermissible merits appeal rather than a justiciable error of law.
1 Aug 2022

楊天偉對香港房屋委員會及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1087
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV392/2020

The Court refused the applicant's motion for extension of time and his application for leave to appeal because (a) the one‑day delay was immaterial but did not justify extension in circumstances where the proposed grounds lack reasonable prospect of success, (b) the applicant failed to identify any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), (c) the Appeal Board's findings were supported by evidence and not perverse, and (d) the additional documents relied on by the applicant constituted fresh evidence not properly before the administrative decision and not admissible under esta…
21 Apr 2022

楊天偉對香港房屋委員會及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCA 535
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV392/2020

The appeal is dismissed because the Authority terminated the tenancy for breach of the express lease obligation to 'habitually/continuously reside' (II(20)), the contested 'three‑month' policy was inapplicable to the 2004 tenancy and did not form the basis of the termination, the Appeals Committee's factual findings were supported by evidence and not Wednesbury‑unreasonable, and there was no procedural unfairness; therefore the proposed judicial review lacked an arguable case and permission was correctly refused.
11 Mar 2020

黃桂林 v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL159/2018

The applicant knowingly made a false declaration which resulted in a substantial and unfair benefit; the Housing Authority lawfully applied its established policy to issue a Notice to Quit under s.19(1)(b) to revert tenancy conditions; the Tribunal properly confirmed the NTQ; the decisions were neither procedurally unfair nor disproportionate or Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore the judicial review claim fails.
12 Apr 2019

黃桂林 v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 940
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL159/2018

Leave was granted because the proposed judicial review raised a reasonably arguable issue with a realistic prospect of success: specifically whether the HA and Tribunal failed to determine the applicant's state of mind (claim of being misled), a relevant factor in the exercise of statutory discretion; the court confined itself to the leave question and did not decide the merits.