HILLSBOROUGH HOLDINGS LTD v. CHEUNG YEE WO

HILLSBOROUGH HOLDINGS LTD v. CHEUNG YEE WO

The court allowed recovery of the distraint expenses ($9,097.60) and reinstatement costs ($33,600.00) in full and allowed the claimed loss of rent, service charges and rates ($91,106.77) because although the plaintiff failed to offer the premises for re-letting immediately upon repossession (a failure to mitigate),...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 976
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 August 2018
Case Number
DCCJ4822/2016
Procedural Posture
Breach of Tenancy Agreements; Assessment of Damages / Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment
Outcome
Final judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $30,838.37 with interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Breach of Tenancy Agreement, Mitigation of Loss, Reinstatement Costs, Distraint, Assessment of Damages, Costs
Source Language
en
Contract Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Damages Breach of Tenancy Agreement Mitigation of Loss Reinstatement Costs Distraint +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Breach of Tenancy Agreements; Assessment of Damages / Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff could recover distraint expenses and reinstatement costs from defendant
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff could recover loss of rent, service charges and rates after re-entry
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff mitigated its loss and effect of any failure to mitigate on recoverable damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed recovery of the distraint expenses ($9,097.60) and reinstatement costs ($33,600.00) in full and allowed the claimed loss of rent, service charges and rates ($91,106.77) because although the plaintiff failed to offer the premises for re-letting immediately upon repossession (a failure to mitigate), the evidence established that even had the plaintiff offered earlier re-letting the premises would not likely have been re-let before the agreement expiry (29 Feb 2016) due to market conditions and the shops' unfavorable location. The court deducted the two security deposits ($52,401 and $50,565) from the aggregate recoverable sums to arrive at final damages of $30,838.37 and...

Court Disposition

Final judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $30,838.37 with interest and costs.

Orders

  • Final judgment for plaintiff against defendant for $30,838.37
  • Interest at 6% per annum from 30 Sept 2016 to date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment