BLOOMARK INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU YIM KEUNG AND ANOTHER

BLOOMARK INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU YIM KEUNG AND ANOTHER

The notice to extend was a valid exercise of the unilateral option and bound both defendants; the tenancy agreement created an obligation for interim payments pending rent determination; the transfer to Mr Poon was not completed or approved by Management and therefore did not release D2; the agent lacked authority to effect a binding transfer so there is no equitable estoppel; resignation from partnership does not discharge liability absent an endorsed transfer; accordingly judgment for plaintiffs for the claimed sum with interest and costs follows.

Citation
BLOOMARK INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU YIM KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Bloomark Investment Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Lifuoy Investment Limited; 1st Defendant: Yu Yim Keung; 2nd Defendant: Chan Suk Kuen
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 August 2005
Case Number
DCCJ5779/2002
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant – Unpaid Rent Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs in the sum of $292,742.80 with interest at 2% per annum from the date of the Writ; costs to the plaintiffs nisi to be taxed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Option to Renew Lease, Interim Payment, Joint and Several Liability, Transfer of Tenancy, Equitable Estoppel, Forfeiture of Deposit, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Equity Civil Procedure Option to Renew Lease Interim Payment Joint and Several Liability Transfer of Tenancy +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloomark Investment Limited

1st Plaintiff

Lifuoy Investment Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Yu Yim Keung

1st Defendant

Chan Suk Kuen

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant – Unpaid Rent Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant notice to extend constituted a valid exercise of the option to renew
  2. 2 Whether D2 was discharged from liability by resigning from the partnership with D1
  3. 3 Whether the signed transfer to a proposed substitute (Mr Poon) released D2

Ratio Decidendi

The notice to extend was a valid exercise of the unilateral option and bound both defendants; the tenancy agreement created an obligation for interim payments pending rent determination; the transfer to Mr Poon was not completed or approved by Management and therefore did not release D2; the agent lacked authority to effect a binding transfer so there is no equitable estoppel; resignation from partnership does not discharge liability absent an endorsed transfer; accordingly judgment for plaintiffs for the claimed sum with interest and costs follows.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs in the sum of $292,742.80 with interest at 2% per annum from the date of the Writ; costs to the plaintiffs nisi to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiffs for $292,742.80
  • Interest on judgment at 2% per annum from date of Writ