華利釆有限公司 對 中銅有限公司

華利釆有限公司 對 中銅有限公司

The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence that the landlord or a person with authority unequivocally promised a 50% rent reduction for February and March 2020, and no principal‑emanating representation establishing apparent authority of Mr Chan. The partial payments did not constitute accord and satisfaction and promissory estoppel did not apply because there was no clear, unequivocal promise inducing detrimental reliance. Therefore the landlord's claim for possession and unpaid rent succeeds.

Citation
[2020] HKLdT 35
Parties
Applicant (landlord): CHINA PROFAIR LIMITED (華利釆有限公司); Respondent (tenant): SINO COPPER LIMITED (中銅有限公司)
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 September 2020
Case Number
LDPE316/2020
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Possession and Rent Recovery / Determination at Hearing Before Lands Tribunal Member
Outcome
Application allowed in part: landlord's claim for possession and unpaid rent granted; tenant's defence on rent reduction rejected; tenant to return vacant possession and pay specified arrears and costs.
Legal Topics
Rent Arrears, Possession, Apparent (ostensible) Authority, Promissory Estoppel, Accord and Satisfaction, Payment as Discharge, COVID 19 Regulatory Context
Source Language
CH
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Agency Equitable Estoppel Commercial Law Rent Arrears Possession Apparent (ostensible) Authority +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHINA PROFAIR LIMITED (華利釆有限公司)

Applicant (landlord)

SINO COPPER LIMITED (中銅有限公司)

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Possession and Rent Recovery / Determination at Hearing Before Lands Tribunal Member

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord consented to a 50% rent reduction for February and March 2020
  2. 2 Whether a third party (Mr Chan) had apparent authority to bind the landlord to rent concessions
  3. 3 Whether promissory estoppel prevents the landlord from enforcing full rent

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence that the landlord or a person with authority unequivocally promised a 50% rent reduction for February and March 2020, and no principal‑emanating representation establishing apparent authority of Mr Chan. The partial payments did not constitute accord and satisfaction and promissory estoppel did not apply because there was no clear, unequivocal promise inducing detrimental reliance. Therefore the landlord's claim for possession and unpaid rent succeeds.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: landlord's claim for possession and unpaid rent granted; tenant's defence on rent reduction rejected; tenant to return vacant possession and pay specified arrears and costs.

Orders

  • Respondent to return vacant possession of the premises to Applicant (except as otherwise provided in the order)
  • Respondent to pay arrears of HKD 440000 for the outstanding balance for the period 1 Feb 2020 to 31 Mar 2020