LIN HEUNG TEA HOUSE & BAKERY (a firm) v. CORAL KING LTD.

LIN HEUNG TEA HOUSE & BAKERY (a firm) v. CORAL KING LTD.

No oral renewal was concluded because the Tenant's representative lacked authority to agree an increase to $65,000; landlord waived any right to require reinstatement on delivery of possession and therefore cannot claim mesne profits for the reinstatement period; landlord is entitled only to a quantum meruit for management services assessed at $53,328; Tenant is entitled to return of deposit and agreed reimbursements.

Citation
LIN HEUNG TEA HOUSE & BAKERY (a firm) v. CORAL KING LTD.
Parties
Tenant: Lin Heung Tea House & Bakery (a firm); Landlord: Coral King Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2000
Case Number
HCA19563/1998
Procedural Posture
High Court Consolidated Actions: Forfeiture and Claim for Return of Rental Deposit / Judgment Following Re Trial in Court of First Instance (27 June 2000)
Outcome
Judgment for the Tenant on the principal contractual issues (no oral renewal; deposit repayable); partial judgment for the Landlord on quantum meruit for management services.
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Renewal of Tenancy, Oral Agreement, Rental Deposit, Quantum Meruit, Management Fees, Reinstatement, Notice of Termination, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Forfeiture Renewal of Tenancy Oral Agreement Rental Deposit +5 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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lin Heung Tea House & Bakery (a firm)

Tenant

Coral King Limited

Landlord

Procedural Posture

High Court Consolidated Actions: Forfeiture and Claim for Return of Rental Deposit / Judgment Following Re Trial in Court of First Instance (27 June 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement to renew the tenancy was concluded in November 1997
  2. 2 Whether the tenant was obliged to reinstate premises and liable for mesne profits for delay in reinstatement
  3. 3 Whether landlord was entitled to management fees and quantum meruit for services provided

Ratio Decidendi

No oral renewal was concluded because the Tenant's representative lacked authority to agree an increase to $65,000; landlord waived any right to require reinstatement on delivery of possession and therefore cannot claim mesne profits for the reinstatement period; landlord is entitled only to a quantum meruit for management services assessed at $53,328; Tenant is entitled to return of deposit and agreed reimbursements.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Tenant on the principal contractual issues (no oral renewal; deposit repayable); partial judgment for the Landlord on quantum meruit for management services.

Orders

  • Landlord to pay Tenant $150000 being return of the rental deposit, with interest at prime rate + 1% from date of the writ to date of judgment and at judgment rate from date of judgment to date of payment.
  • Landlord to pay Tenant $2292 being repayment of Government rent, with interest at prime rate + 1% from date of the writ to date of judgment and at judgment rate from date of judgment to date of payment.