LAU SHUN PING DANNY v. LAI HANG VA

LAU SHUN PING DANNY v. LAI HANG VA

The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff made the alleged representations, assurances, or the oral Compliance and Rental Suspension Agreements; the plaintiff did not disclose Building Order and Fire Safety Direction before signing but believed they did not affect occupation; only the covenant of quiet enjoyment was implied; plaintiff complied with the Building Order and the Fire Safety Direction did not apply; water leakage did not impede ordinary use or quiet enjoyment; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for specified sums and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Citation
LAU SHUN PING DANNY v. LAI HANG VA
Parties
Plaintiff (landlord): Mr Lau; Defendant (tenant): Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 October 2012
Case Number
HCA1553/2009
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Dispute / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Mesne Profits, Quiet Enjoyment, Implied Terms, Non Derogation of Grant, Misrepresentation, Estoppel, Building Order, Fire Safety Direction, Water Leakage
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Property Law Building and Fire Safety Regulation Mesne Profits Quiet Enjoyment Implied Terms Non Derogation of Grant +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Lau

Plaintiff (landlord)

Defendant

Defendant (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Dispute / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff informed defendant of Building Order and Fire Safety Direction prior to tenancy
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff made representations and assurances about fitness and renovation
  3. 3 Whether the Tenancy Agreement contained implied terms (building compliance, fire safety compliance, disclosure, fitness for user, fitness for insurance, quiet enjoyment)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff made the alleged representations, assurances, or the oral Compliance and Rental Suspension Agreements; the plaintiff did not disclose Building Order and Fire Safety Direction before signing but believed they did not affect occupation; only the covenant of quiet enjoyment was implied; plaintiff complied with the Building Order and the Fire Safety Direction did not apply; water leakage did not impede ordinary use or quiet enjoyment; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for specified sums and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • Award mesne profit HK$1,280,000 for period 23 March to 15 October 2009
  • Award government rent HK$307.75 for period 23 February to 15 October 2009