Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy variation

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2023

MILLION FORTUNE INDUSTRIES LTD v. AMJAD NADEEM

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 71
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1268/2022

The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities and having given decisive weight to contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and video recordings and witness credibility, that no agreements to reduce rent to HK$20,000 or HK$17,000 were proved; accordingly the respondent was liable to pay arrears of rent/mesne profits of HK$529,920 for 14 November 2016 to 13 September 2022 and HK$27,776 per month from 14 September 2022 to 8 February 2023 (date of delivery of vacant possession).
9 Sept 2002

Yee Fat Investments & Co. Ltd. v. David Charles Diniz

Citation

Yee Fat Investments & Co. Ltd. v. David Charles Diniz
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1945/2002

On balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the reduced payments from March 2000 represented a variation of rent under the existing 29 October 1998 tenancy and not a new tenancy requiring lodging of Form CR 109; accordingly the landlord was entitled to possession and to recover arrears, management fees, mesne profits, costs and contractual interest, with conditional relief from forfeiture if specified sums were paid within four weeks.
22 May 2000

WA LEE FINANCE CO. LTD. v. GOLAN LTD. t/a EMPEROR SEAFOOD RESTAURANT

Citation

WA LEE FINANCE CO. LTD. v. GOLAN LTD. t/a EMPEROR SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15354/1999

Given the close relationship of the parties, the absence of any documentary proof for the alleged $4.2m payment, the suspicious cash payments to related parties, the late stamping of the purported supplemental tenancy and the implausibility of the defendant's account, the court found no real or bona fide defence and allowed summary judgment for the plaintiff.
27 Jan 1995

BAYER CHINA CO LTD v. MID-LEVELS PORTFOLIO (BRANKSOME) LTD

Citation

BAYER CHINA CO LTD v. MID-LEVELS PORTFOLIO (BRANKSOME) LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT2589/1994

The respondent failed to discharge the onus of showing sufficient reason to vary the current tenancy to include a redevelopment break clause; consequently the Tribunal refused the variation, preserved the tenant's security of tenure, and fixed the Prevailing Market Rent at HK$90,000 per month as at 14 July 1994, granting a new two‑year tenancy from 15 July 1994 on the same terms as before (with an updated deposit clause).

Hong Kong Case Law

MILLION FORTUNE INDUSTRIES LTD v. AMJAD NADEEM

Yee Fat Investments & Co. Ltd. v. David Charles Diniz

WA LEE FINANCE CO. LTD. v. GOLAN LTD. t/a EMPEROR SEAFOOD RESTAURANT

BAYER CHINA CO LTD v. MID-LEVELS PORTFOLIO (BRANKSOME) LTD