LAM SIU HAY v. CHELEX LTD

LAM SIU HAY v. CHELEX LTD

The court accepted evidence that the plaintiff knew of the user restriction (advised by consultant Wong and from landlord interactions) before entering the tenancy and therefore did not rely on any alleged misrepresentation; plaintiff repudiated the tenancy by failing to pay rent and fees, defendant validly set off the HK$66,000 deposit and is entitled to the balance of arrears with interest and costs; plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Citation
LAM SIU HAY v. CHELEX LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 September 2012
Case Number
HCA1612/2010
Procedural Posture
Tenancy Dispute (misrepresentation and Breach) / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim successful for arrears less deposit
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Rescission, Repudiatory Breach, Affirmation, Rent Arrears, Waiver of User Restriction
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Landlord and Tenant Property Misrepresentation Rescission Repudiatory Breach Affirmation +2 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Tenancy Dispute (misrepresentation and Breach) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord made a misrepresentation inducing the tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was aware of the user restriction prior to entering the tenancy
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff affirmed the tenancy after learning the true facts

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted evidence that the plaintiff knew of the user restriction (advised by consultant Wong and from landlord interactions) before entering the tenancy and therefore did not rely on any alleged misrepresentation; plaintiff repudiated the tenancy by failing to pay rent and fees, defendant validly set off the HK$66,000 deposit and is entitled to the balance of arrears with interest and costs; plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim successful for arrears less deposit

Orders

  • Defendant entitled to deduct deposit of HK$66,000 for arrears of rent, rates, government rent and management fees
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant the balance of HK$92,186 with interest at judgment rate from 24 December 2010 to date of judgment