LUI WAI LIM WILLIAM v. LEE YIN SHING

LUI WAI LIM WILLIAM v. LEE YIN SHING

Extrinsic evidence was admissible to construe the tenancy; the court found an agreed rent-free period which negated the alleged July 2007 arrears so landlord was not entitled to forfeit at commencement of proceedings; the demised premises were the shop (Portion A) with permissive, non-demised use of certain backyard facilities; tenant breached the air-conditioning covenant by installing the condenser contrary to landlord's direction but landlord's conduct (demanding rent and commencing proceedings) meant forfeiture was not effective; landlord did not derogate from grant nor was tenant's loss proved; claim and counterclaim dismissed and each party to bear own costs.

Citation
LUI WAI LIM WILLIAM v. LEE YIN SHING
Parties
Plaintiff / Landlord: Lui; Defendant / Tenant: Lee
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 2009
Case Number
DCCJ4247/2007
Procedural Posture
Tenancy Dispute; Possession and Counterclaim for Damages / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed; parties to bear their own costs
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Quiet Enjoyment, Derogation From Grant, Breach of Covenant (air Conditioning and Electrical Works), Parol Evidence Rule, Possession, Damages
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Property Civil Procedure Forfeiture Quiet Enjoyment Derogation From Grant Breach of Covenant (air Conditioning and Electrical Works) +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lui

Plaintiff / Landlord

Lee

Defendant / Tenant

Procedural Posture

Tenancy Dispute; Possession and Counterclaim for Damages / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenant owed rent for July 2007 and existence/effect of alleged 18-day rent-free period
  2. 2 Extent of premises demised (whether entire ground floor including backyard or shop only)
  3. 3 Whether tenant breached covenants by installing air-conditioner and unauthorised electrical works

Ratio Decidendi

Extrinsic evidence was admissible to construe the tenancy; the court found an agreed rent-free period which negated the alleged July 2007 arrears so landlord was not entitled to forfeit at commencement of proceedings; the demised premises were the shop (Portion A) with permissive, non-demised use of certain backyard facilities; tenant breached the air-conditioning covenant by installing the condenser contrary to landlord's direction but landlord's conduct (demanding rent and commencing proceedings) meant forfeiture was not effective; landlord did not derogate from grant nor was tenant's loss proved; claim and counterclaim dismissed and each party to bear own costs.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed; parties to bear their own costs

Orders

  • The claim and the counterclaim are dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear his own costs of this action, including any costs reserved.