SASAKI AKEMI v. TANG HON TSAI

SASAKI AKEMI v. TANG HON TSAI

The contractual break clause only permitted early termination within the fixed two-year term so the written 6 May 2005 notice taking effect 7 July 2005 was invalid; however the parties reached a verbal agreement to terminate on 7 July 2005 which amounted to an agreement under s.5(4) of the amended Ordinance to vary the notice period, rendering a statutory TTN unnecessary; accordingly the Defendant was not entitled to deduct one month's rent in lieu and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$53,225.80 plus interest.

Citation
SASAKI AKEMI v. TANG HON TSAI
Parties
Plaintiff (tenant): SASAKI AKEMI; Defendant (landlord): TANG HON TSAI
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2006
Case Number
DCCJ3549/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Landlord and Tenant (deposit Recovery) / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of HK$53,225.80 with interest at the judgment rate from date of writ; costs to follow the event, order nisi that Defendant pay costs to Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Rental Deposit, Termination Notice, Break Clause, Transitional Termination Notice, Agreement to Vary Notice Period, Credit for Rent Pro Rata
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Property Law Civil Procedure Rental Deposit Termination Notice Break Clause Transitional Termination Notice +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SASAKI AKEMI

Plaintiff (tenant)

TANG HON TSAI

Defendant (landlord)

Procedural Posture

Civil Landlord and Tenant (deposit Recovery) / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's 6 May 2005 termination notice taking effect on 7 July 2005 was valid given it fell after the contractual expiry
  2. 2 Whether the parties reached a verbal agreement to terminate the tenancy on 7 July 2005 such that statutory TTN requirement did not apply

Ratio Decidendi

The contractual break clause only permitted early termination within the fixed two-year term so the written 6 May 2005 notice taking effect 7 July 2005 was invalid; however the parties reached a verbal agreement to terminate on 7 July 2005 which amounted to an agreement under s.5(4) of the amended Ordinance to vary the notice period, rendering a statutory TTN unnecessary; accordingly the Defendant was not entitled to deduct one month's rent in lieu and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$53,225.80 plus interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of HK$53,225.80 with interest at the judgment rate from date of writ; costs to follow the event, order nisi that Defendant pay costs to Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff for HK$53,225.80
  • Interest at judgment rate from date of writ