UNITED MERIT DEVELPMENT LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD

UNITED MERIT DEVELPMENT LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD

On the evidence the Notices of Expiry of Tenancy were invitations to treat or preliminary proposals requiring landlord confirmation and execution of formal tenancy documents; the leasing manager lacked authority to unilaterally bind the landlords and any utterance over the phone did not constitute acceptance. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
UNITED MERIT DEVELPMENT LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD
Parties
1st Applicant (landlord): Shun Ho Energy Development Company Limited; 2nd Applicant (landlord / Leasing Agent): Winland Enterprises Limited; 3rd Applicant (landlord): United Merit Development Limited; Respondent (tenant): Golden Crown Industries Limited
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Case Number
LDPE1062/2013
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession and Mesne Profits / Judgment
Outcome
Order for vacant possession granted in favour of the applicants; order stayed for two months until 14 May 2014; mesne profits and costs awarded to applicants.
Legal Topics
Renewal of Tenancy, Offer and Acceptance, Invitation to Treat, Apparent/ostensible Authority, Estoppel (promissory), Mesne Profits, Possession Order, Stay of Possession
Source Language
en
Landlord and Tenant Property Contract Equity Civil Procedure Renewal of Tenancy Offer and Acceptance Invitation to Treat +5 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shun Ho Energy Development Company Limited

1st Applicant (landlord)

Winland Enterprises Limited

2nd Applicant (landlord / Leasing Agent)

United Merit Development Limited

3rd Applicant (landlord)

Golden Crown Industries Limited

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession and Mesne Profits / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notices of Expiry of Tenancy constituted legally binding offers capable of acceptance
  2. 2 Whether the respondent accepted any such offer thereby creating a new tenancy
  3. 3 Whether the leasing manager had actual or ostensible authority to bind the landlords

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Notices of Expiry of Tenancy were invitations to treat or preliminary proposals requiring landlord confirmation and execution of formal tenancy documents; the leasing manager lacked authority to unilaterally bind the landlords and any utterance over the phone did not constitute acceptance. The respondent's payments and the issue of routine debit notes did not prove the creation of new tenancies or establish estoppel. Consequently no renewal arose; order for vacant possession granted, mesne profits awarded at specified monthly rates, and the possession order stayed for two months to permit relocation.

Court Disposition

Order for vacant possession granted in favour of the applicants; order stayed for two months until 14 May 2014; mesne profits and costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Respondent to deliver vacant possession of Shop C, Shop D and Shop E to the applicants
  • Order for vacant possession stayed until 14 May 2014