KING CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. BARON TUXEDO LTD AND ANOTHER

KING CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. BARON TUXEDO LTD AND ANOTHER

The defendants' primary defence—that an oral Withholding Payment Agreement suspended rent demands—was not believable and was contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct; even if believed it would be an unenforceable agreement to agree; clause 11.1 of the TA 2019 made the rent-free period conditional and entitled the landlord to recover rent where the tenant breached; the misrepresentation counterclaim lacked necessary particularity and evidence and was struck out; the guarantor is liable; reinstatement relief was not pleaded in time so cannot be granted on summary judgment though defendants have leave to defend that head.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 634
Parties
Plaintiff: King Crown Development Limited; 1st Defendant: Baron Tuxedo Limited; 2nd Defendant: Fong Chun Man
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 May 2023
Case Number
DCCJ5254/2021
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant; Debt; Summary Judgment / Summary Judgment Application (order 14; Order 18 R.19)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part for Plaintiff; counterclaim of 1st and 2nd Defendants struck out; application for reinstatement relief dismissed for summary judgment with unconditional leave to defendants to defend that head
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Promissory Estoppel, Misrepresentation, Guarantee Liability, Collateral Oral Agreement, Rent Arrears, Reinstatement Damages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Equity Commercial Law Summary Judgment Promissory Estoppel Misrepresentation +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

King Crown Development Limited

Plaintiff

Baron Tuxedo Limited

1st Defendant

Fong Chun Man

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant; Debt; Summary Judgment / Summary Judgment Application (order 14; Order 18 R.19)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an alleged oral Withholding Payment Agreement existed
  2. 2 Whether any alleged collateral oral agreement disclosed an arguable defence
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff could retrospectively recover rent for the Rent Free Period under clause 11.1

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' primary defence—that an oral Withholding Payment Agreement suspended rent demands—was not believable and was contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct; even if believed it would be an unenforceable agreement to agree; clause 11.1 of the TA 2019 made the rent-free period conditional and entitled the landlord to recover rent where the tenant breached; the misrepresentation counterclaim lacked necessary particularity and evidence and was struck out; the guarantor is liable; reinstatement relief was not pleaded in time so cannot be granted on summary judgment though defendants have leave to defend that head.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part for Plaintiff; counterclaim of 1st and 2nd Defendants struck out; application for reinstatement relief dismissed for summary judgment with unconditional leave to defendants to defend that head

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd Defendants for the outstanding sum of HK$1,325,978.03 (as calculated up to 7 February 2023) representing rent, expenses and interest pursuant to TA 2019
  • Counterclaim of the 1st and 2nd Defendants struck out