WING HING PROVISION WINE & SPIRITS CO LTD v. EASY KEY LTD

WING HING PROVISION WINE & SPIRITS CO LTD v. EASY KEY LTD

The court found on balance that a two-year renewed tenancy was concluded, the Defendant repudiated it by vacating and failing to pay rent, the Plaintiff validly accepted the repudiation and was entitled to common law damages; the express forfeiture clause permitted absolute forfeiture of the HK$30,000 deposit and no equitable relief was warranted; damages were assessed at HKD162,846.5 and the Defendant's counterclaim for return of the deposit was dismissed.

Citation
WING HING PROVISION WINE & SPIRITS CO LTD v. EASY KEY LTD
Parties
Landlord: Plaintiff; Tenant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Case Number
DCCJ4722/2014
Procedural Posture
Tenancy / Contract / Trial; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; security deposit forfeited
Legal Topics
Renewal of Tenancy, Repudiatory Breach, Forfeiture of Deposit, Damages Assessment, Set Off
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Landlord and Tenant Equity Renewal of Tenancy Repudiatory Breach Forfeiture of Deposit Damages Assessment +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Landlord

Defendant

Tenant

Procedural Posture

Tenancy / Contract / Trial; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expired tenancy was validly renewed for two years
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant repudiated the renewed tenancy by vacating and non-payment of rent
  3. 3 Whether the landlord validly forfeited the security deposit under the tenancy clause and whether it could be set off against damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on balance that a two-year renewed tenancy was concluded, the Defendant repudiated it by vacating and failing to pay rent, the Plaintiff validly accepted the repudiation and was entitled to common law damages; the express forfeiture clause permitted absolute forfeiture of the HK$30,000 deposit and no equitable relief was warranted; damages were assessed at HKD162,846.5 and the Defendant's counterclaim for return of the deposit was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; security deposit forfeited

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff HK$162,846.5 as damages for breach of the renewed tenancy agreement
  • Defendant's counterclaim for return of HK$30,000 deposit dismissed