CONVENIENT LTD v. GREAT DAY INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

bjbj HCA1353/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1353 OF 2008 ---------------------------- BETWEEN CONVENIENT LIMITED Plaintiff and GREAT DAY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 1st Defendant LEE YIU FAI ( as the landlord and the defendant as the tenant entered into a fixed term tenancy of two years from 18 July 2006 to 17 July 2008. The 2nd defendant entered into a Guarantee and Indemnity in favour of the plaintiff in consideration of the plaintiff entering into the aforesaid tenancy agreement. AUTONUMOUT The tenancy expired on 17 July 2008 and in this action the plaintiff claimed for vacant possession of the property at Shop C on Ground Floor of Golden Crown Court in Nathan Road. AUTONUMOUT In the defence of the defendants they alleged that on 3 March 2008 there was a meeting between Mr Chau of the plaintiff and Mr Tso of the 1st defendant whereby the landlord offered a renewal of tenancy at $700,000 per month which is a small raise from the original rental of $680,000 for two years. This offer, according to Mr Tso, was accepted by him seven days later on 10 March 2008 over a telephone conversation with Mr Chau. AUTONUMOUT However the sequence of events did not point to any oral agreement at all. Before the expiration of the tenancy agreement the plaintiff through Messrs Deacons, their solicitors, issued two letters on 17 and 26 March 2008 to the 1st defendant notifying them that they should deliver up vacant possession of the property upon expiration of the term on 17 July 2008. That was of course shortly after the alleged oral agreement. There was no immediate response by the 1st defendant raising the alleged oral agreement of renewal. AUTONUMOUT Instead on 28 April 2008 the 1st defendant wrote back by a Chinese letter and requested a short-term extension of the tenancy until the end of 2008. It had also stated that the 1st defendant felt regrettable that the plaintiff had already let out the property to a jewellery company and therefore they had no other alternative but to look for another place. This is totally inconsistent with the alleged oral agreement. AUTONUMOUT The 1st defendant sought to explain their position by saying that Mr Tso was only a layman, he did not know the binding effect on the oral agreement. However both parties are businessmen they should know the importance of an agreement. If there was a renewal of tenancy, albeit by an oral agreement, the 1st defendant would not have written a letter in such a term. To the aforesaid letter of the 1st defendant the plaintiff replied by a letter dated 13 May 2008 refusing to grant an extension and reminded the 1st defendant to deliver up vacant possession upon the expiration of the tenancy agreement. That oral agreement was not put forward until the 1st defendant was represented by their solicitors and the oral agreement was only put forward later on. AUTONUMOUT Although in a summary judgment application this court should not resolve the dispute on affidavit evidence, yet the case put forward by the defendants was totally incredible. Accordingly in my view the plaintiff is entitled to final judgment in this application with costs of the action including this application. (D. Yam) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Paul Kwan, of Messrs Deacons, for the Plaintiff Mr Kenny Lin, instructed by Messrs Cheng, Chan & Co., for the 1st & 2nd Defendants PAGE - PAGE A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V 1udk 1udk H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V (#p# (#p# #(#A &`#$ $O3< J[ 6 6^j@ .l^L ::xy J[ 6 .l^L ::xy & 6" ABC.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8