Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Termination notice

  • 12 Mar 2021

    WING HING (1956) CO LTD v. NISSIN FOODS CO LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 638
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1988/2017

    On the evidence Wing Hing failed to prove the existence of the alleged 1969 oral sole-distribution agreement, failed to establish any novation to place Nissin HK or Wing Hing as contracting parties, and failed to establish an implied long-notice termination term or breach; accordingly its contract and damages claims fail and, on both control and public-perception tests, goodwill in the Brand Name belonged to the Nissin Group (Nissin HK) at the date of the writ.

  • 17 Mar 2020

    黃潔貞 對 周富平

    Citation
    [2020] HKDC 107
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5936/2018

    The court held that after expiry of the fixed terms continued monthly payment of rent created periodic monthly tenancies; the landlord validly served termination notices and showed no common intention to renew; defendants failed to demonstrate real defenses or triable issues, therefore summary judgment for possession and mesne profits was appropriate and the principal counterclaim was struck out.

  • 12 Jun 2017

    CITY MAKER LTD v. JETCOOL GROUP (WONG\'S) LTD

    Citation
    CITY MAKER LTD v. JETCOOL GROUP (WONG\'S) LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2214/2016

    The defendant's account was not believable: the 27 June 2016 letter is inconsistent with an earlier formal notice and with knowledge of any break clause, the defendant had and accepted the written second tenancy agreement (including by WhatsApp), and there was no credible evidence of an oral collateral term or misrepresentation; therefore the written lease governs and summary judgment was correctly entered.

  • 14 Dec 2016

    GOAL UPWARD INVESTMENT LTD v. OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    GOAL UPWARD INVESTMENT LTD v. OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1355/2016

    The court held that although the notice was inadequate and therefore null and void, the plaintiff failed to obtain the injunctions and declarations it sought and thus the defendants were overall successful; the defendants were awarded their costs of the interlocutory summonses with a certificate for two counsel to be taxed if not agreed and to be paid forthwith; summary assessment of the bulk of the claimed costs was refused and taxation was ordered for the primary claim, while two costs items dated 5 October were summarily assessed at HKD 60,250.

  • 29 Feb 2016

    MANPOWER SERVICES (HONG KONG) LTD v. YBF GROUP LTD

    Citation
    MANPOWER SERVICES (HONG KONG) LTD v. YBF GROUP LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3962/2012

    Plaintiff's claim dismissed because there is no contractual mechanism to require direct return of Monthly Drawings and Manpower failed to prove the expenses it alleged (internal Profit & Loss statements were unreliable and unsupported); defendant's counterclaim dismissed because Monthly Drawings are not absolute entitlements and must be offset against Service Fee and there was no reliable evidence of Service Fee entitlement or quantifiable loss; both parties unsuccessful and no order as to costs (order nisi).

  • 29 Jul 2015

    陳妙玲 對 蔡淑虞經營森記廚房

    Citation
    陳妙玲 對 蔡淑虞經營森記廚房
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCME1/2015

    The arbitrator made a factual finding that, on the evidence (short, part-time, low-skilled employment of about two weeks), one day was a reasonable notice period; that finding involved no legal error nor excess of jurisdiction under s31(1) Cap.453, so leave to appeal was properly refused.

  • 6 Nov 2014

    TONG LEUNG HEY LEO 對 陳季祥

    Citation
    TONG LEUNG HEY LEO 對 陳季祥
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD1745/2014

    On the balance of probabilities the tribunal found the parties reached an oral agreement to renew the lease for one year and that the applicant's June 22, 2014 termination notice was ineffective because it did not terminate on the tenancy period end; applying these factual findings and the statutory test for leave, the tribunal refused permission to appeal as there was no reasonable prospect of success.

  • 10 Jul 2014

    CHENG YUK WAH 對 LAI YUK MUI

    Citation
    CHENG YUK WAH 對 LAI YUK MUI
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD986/2014

    Tenant was allowed to terminate within first 12 months but required to give one month’s written notice; effective termination date was the expiry of that notice (16 May 2014); tenant had returned vacant possession on 1 May 2014; tenant owed pro rata rent to 16 May 2014 and was liable for the agreed one‑month pre‑estimated compensation; landlord could not claim agent commission or unexpired term loss; proven damage awards were reduced for depreciation; landlord entitled to deduct all awarded sums and costs from the security deposit with remainder returned to tenant.

  • 14 Nov 2013

    MAN FONG HANG v. CHOY KWONG

    Citation
    MAN FONG HANG v. CHOY KWONG
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD996/2012

    The Tribunal correctly exercised jurisdiction under s.8(8)(a) to order payment of rent independently of a possession order; the transitional termination notice did not terminate the periodic tenancy; the respondent failed to prove adverse possession or certainty of tenancy terms where required; consequently the review is dismissed and the respondent must pay $2,800 in rent arrears and costs to be taxed on District Court scale if not agreed with a certificate for counsel.

  • 31 May 2011

    CROWN HONOR LOGISTICS (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER v. SHING KEE WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION (HK) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CROWN HONOR LOGISTICS (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER v. SHING KEE WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION (HK) CO LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA26/2010

    The defendants failed to establish the agreement was void (illegality struck out, no evidence government re-entered and issue estoppel applied); the January notice did not defeat plaintiffs' claim because it gave only two months' notice and plaintiffs remain entitled to at least one month's license fee after deposit set-off; on balance of probabilities plaintiffs would recover a substantial sum and the Registrar's interim payment order for one month's license fee was correctly made; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to plaintiffs.