WONG YING WAH v. YEUNG TSANG YING YING SOPHIA

WONG YING WAH v. YEUNG TSANG YING YING SOPHIA

Respondent remained liable to pay rent despite the fire because the landlord gave no legally binding promise to exempt rent, the landlord had no notice or knowledge of wiring defects prior to the fire and hence was not liable for its cause, and the circumstances (limited damage mainly to living room) did not amount to the exceptional catastrophic event required to frustrate the tenancy; therefore possession, arrears/mesne profits and costs were ordered, with conditional relief from forfeiture if respondent paid arrears and costs by the specified date.

Citation
WONG YING WAH v. YEUNG TSANG YING YING SOPHIA
Parties
Landlord: Applicant (registered owner of Flat H, 52/F Tower 11, Carmel Cove); Tenant: Respondent (tenant)
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Case Number
LDPD861/2015
Procedural Posture
Possession for Non Payment of Rent Under Formal Tenancy Agreement / Judgment at Lands Tribunal
Outcome
Applicant granted possession; respondent ordered to pay arrears/mesne profits and costs; conditional relief from forfeiture if arrears and costs paid by relief expiration date
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Frustration of Contract, Repairing Covenant, Mesne Profits, Damages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Property Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Forfeiture Frustration of Contract Repairing Covenant +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant (registered owner of Flat H, 52/F Tower 11, Carmel Cove)

Landlord

Respondent (tenant)

Tenant

Procedural Posture

Possession for Non Payment of Rent Under Formal Tenancy Agreement / Judgment at Lands Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the respondent liable to pay rent after the fire on 18 March 2015?
  2. 2 Did the applicant promise to exempt the respondent from paying rent post-fire and was any such promise legally binding?
  3. 3 Was the applicant liable for the fire damage or obliged to claim or apply insurance to compensate the tenant?

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent remained liable to pay rent despite the fire because the landlord gave no legally binding promise to exempt rent, the landlord had no notice or knowledge of wiring defects prior to the fire and hence was not liable for its cause, and the circumstances (limited damage mainly to living room) did not amount to the exceptional catastrophic event required to frustrate the tenancy; therefore possession, arrears/mesne profits and costs were ordered, with conditional relief from forfeiture if respondent paid arrears and costs by the specified date.

Court Disposition

Applicant granted possession; respondent ordered to pay arrears/mesne profits and costs; conditional relief from forfeiture if arrears and costs paid by relief expiration date

Orders

  • Respondent to deliver vacant possession of Flat H, 52/F Tower 11, Carmel Cove to applicant (subject to paragraph 4 of order)
  • Respondent to pay arrears of rent/mesne profits at $22,800 per month from 15 March 2015 until delivery up of vacant possession