Yee Fat Investments & Co. Ltd. v. David Charles Diniz

Yee Fat Investments & Co. Ltd. v. David Charles Diniz

On balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the reduced payments from March 2000 represented a variation of rent under the existing 29 October 1998 tenancy and not a new tenancy requiring lodging of Form CR 109; accordingly the landlord was entitled to possession and to recover arrears, management fees, mesne profits, costs and contractual interest, with conditional relief from forfeiture if specified sums were paid within four weeks.

Citation
Yee Fat Investments & Co. Ltd. v. David Charles Diniz
Parties
Applicant / Landlord: Yee Fat Investments & Company Limited; Respondent / Tenant: David Charles Diniz
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2002
Case Number
LDPD1945/2002
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Application for Vacant Possession and Recovery of Rent and Charges / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part: landlord granted possession and recovery of specified sums; conditional relief from forfeiture granted if sums paid within four weeks; otherwise orders immediately enforceable and respondent barred from relief.
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Rent Arrears, Tenancy Variation, Statutory Lodging of Tenancy Notice (form CR 109), Mesne Profits, Interest on Arrears, Relief From Forfeiture
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Property Law Statutory Compliance Forfeiture Rent Arrears Tenancy Variation Statutory Lodging of Tenancy Notice (form CR 109) +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yee Fat Investments & Company Limited

Applicant / Landlord

David Charles Diniz

Respondent / Tenant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Application for Vacant Possession and Recovery of Rent and Charges / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties entered a new tenancy requiring lodging of Form CR 109 under s.119L(1)
  2. 2 Whether failure to lodge Form CR 109 barred recovery of rent
  3. 3 Whether the reduced rent paid constituted a variation of the existing tenancy or a new tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

On balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the reduced payments from March 2000 represented a variation of rent under the existing 29 October 1998 tenancy and not a new tenancy requiring lodging of Form CR 109; accordingly the landlord was entitled to possession and to recover arrears, management fees, mesne profits, costs and contractual interest, with conditional relief from forfeiture if specified sums were paid within four weeks.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: landlord granted possession and recovery of specified sums; conditional relief from forfeiture granted if sums paid within four weeks; otherwise orders immediately enforceable and respondent barred from relief.

Orders

  • Respondent to deliver vacant possession of 14th Floor, Lawison Building to Applicant.
  • Respondent to pay arrears of rent from 1 January 2002 to 31 July 2002 at $10,000 per month totalling $70,000.