Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination notice validity

Legal area

Court

22 Jul 2020

黃潔貞對和穎

Citation

[2020] HKDC 548
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5937/2018

Leave to appeal refused because defendants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success: factual findings that the tenancies became periodic were supported by the payment pattern; termination notice was valid; strike out applications were inappropriate and premature; conditional stay could only be considered if appellants paid outstanding mesne profits and appellants refused that condition, so stay and related applications were dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff as assessed.
12 Sept 2001

Anthony Grahame Stott v. T Y H Ltd.

Citation

Anthony Grahame Stott v. T Y H Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT132/2001

Application is properly an application for a new tenancy under s.117; declarations and costs claimed independently were not reliefs provided by s.117 and must be dismissed; Respondent's conduct did not satisfy the statutory threshold of frivolous or vexatious under s.119R, so no costs order was appropriate; accordingly the application is dismissed and there is no order as to costs.
8 Jun 2001

Greenville Converting Ltd. v. Fukasi Ltd.

Citation

Greenville Converting Ltd. v. Fukasi Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT440/2000

The Tribunal found the parties had agreed the tenancy commencement was 25 December 1998 while the two-year duration remained unchanged, therefore the tenancy expired on 24 December 2000; the Form CR101 dated 7 June 2000 specified a termination date earlier than that expiry and was invalid under s.119, so the tenancy was not duly terminated and the applicant remains entitled to occupy; consequently the new tenancy application is dismissed.
2 Mar 2001

Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung

Citation

Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT462/2000

The written tenancy clearly established a two-year term to 14 January 2002; the landlord's Form CR101 was invalid because it omitted the required back page, was served outside the statutory 6–7 month window, and specified a termination date earlier than effluxion of time contrary to s.119(2) and s.119(3)(b); accordingly the landlord could not validly terminate the tenancy and the application for a new tenancy was dismissed.
11 May 1995

Bradstone Ltd. v. Carry Express Investment Ltd.

Citation

Bradstone Ltd. v. Carry Express Investment Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPB764/1995

The Form CR 101 was valid because, read as a whole, the printed statement of opposition together with the respondent's inserted wording sufficiently and unambiguously conveyed that the landlord would oppose the grant of a new tenancy on the ground of rent default; the notice must be liberally construed and minor drafting defects do not invalidate it where the substance of s.119(5) is satisfied.

Hong Kong Case Law

黃潔貞 對 和穎

Anthony Grahame Stott v. T Y H Ltd.

Greenville Converting Ltd. v. Fukasi Ltd.

Lau Wing Chung v. Yip Chi Tung

Bradstone Ltd. v. Carry Express Investment Ltd.

黃潔貞對和穎