劉嘉熾 v. 要此廣告顧問有限公司

劉嘉熾 v. 要此廣告顧問有限公司

The court accepted the liquidated damages claim but held the tenancy agreement contained no clause permitting forfeiture of the two months deposit in the present circumstances (clause 7(3) did not apply); accordingly the deposit must be deducted from the liquidated damages, yielding a judgment of $12,000 plus interest and costs.

Citation
劉嘉熾 v. 要此廣告顧問有限公司
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 September 2005
Case Number
DCCJ827/2005
Procedural Posture
Assessment of Damages (tenancy Agreement) / Judgment (assessment)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Liquidated Damages, Forfeiture of Deposit, Interest on Judgment, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Civil Procedure Liquidated Damages Forfeiture of Deposit Interest on Judgment Costs Assessment

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Assessment of Damages (tenancy Agreement) / Judgment (assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the liquidated damages clause in the tenancy agreement is payable
  2. 2 Whether the two months deposit could be forfeited on breach
  3. 3 Whether the deposit must be deducted from liquidated damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the liquidated damages claim but held the tenancy agreement contained no clause permitting forfeiture of the two months deposit in the present circumstances (clause 7(3) did not apply); accordingly the deposit must be deducted from the liquidated damages, yielding a judgment of $12,000 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $12,000
  • Interest on the judgment sum from date of writ to date of judgment at judgment rate and thereafter until payment at judgment rate