Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Unpaid rent

  • 22 Apr 2016

    文貴益 對 劉炳興

    Citation
    文貴益 對 劉炳興
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPD1953/2015

    On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the parties' long-standing conduct created a yearly periodic tenancy (2 February cycle starting 3 February) and respondent was in arrears from 3 February 2014; applicant entitled to possession and costs but relief under Cap.4 s.21F granted conditionally if respondent paid all arrears and costs into the Tribunal by 10 May 2016, in which event forfeiture would be waived and the tenancy reinstated.

  • 15 Mar 2004

    K & E REAL ESTATE (CHINA) LTD v. K & E CO LTD

    Citation
    K & E REAL ESTATE (CHINA) LTD v. K & E CO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ10728/2001

    Judge found on the facts that both Shanghai and Beijing premises remained at the company's disposal and were used so that K & E Company Limited was liable for unpaid rent; Mr To had authority to bind K & E by virtue of his seniority and apparent authority; the Board was aware of Mr Chuang's landlord status and disclosure requirements were substantially complied with so leases were not voidable; no estoppel was proved; accordingly judgment for plaintiffs for the claimed rents except the February 2001 Beijing claim which was dismissed; third party claims against Mr Chuang and Mr To failed.

  • 15 Mar 2004

    K & E REAL ESTATE (CHINA) LTD AND ANOTHER v. K & E CO LTD

    Citation
    K & E REAL ESTATE (CHINA) LTD AND ANOTHER v. K & E CO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ10729/2001

    The court found as a fact that both the Shanghai and Beijing properties remained at the defendants' disposal and were used such that K & E incurred liability for use and occupation; Mr Shelley To had authority to bind K & E to the tenancy agreements; the board was aware of and/or there was substantial compliance with disclosure of Mr Chuang's interest; no estoppel operated to bar the rent claims; accordingly the written tenancies were valid and binding and judgment for unpaid rent was entered for the plaintiffs (save the discrete February 2001 Beijing claim which was dismissed); Third Party c…