Imagine Motion Ltd v. Kalex Ltd

Imagine Motion Ltd v. Kalex Ltd

The court found no actionable misrepresentation by the landlord or its agent and no breached implied term that the premises were fit for a learning centre; the tenant did not rely on alleged representations; the tenant wrongfully repudiated the tenancy; the landlord was entitled to damages but failed to prove full loss claimed and failed to take sufficient evidence of mitigation; damages were assessed at HKD 133,200 and set off against deposits leaving HKD 25,200 payable by the tenant with interest and costs.

Citation
Imagine Motion Ltd v. Kalex Ltd
Parties
Tenant: Plaintiff (Tenants); Landlord: Defendant (Landlord)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 December 2003
Case Number
DCCJ15855/2000
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Dispute (tenancy Rescission and Damages) / District Court Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Rescission, Implied Terms, Quiet Enjoyment, Inducement and Reliance, Mitigation of Loss, Counterclaim, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Misrepresentation Building and Planning Law Remedies (rescission and Damages) Rescission Implied Terms Quiet Enjoyment +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (Tenants)

Tenant

Defendant (Landlord)

Landlord

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Dispute (tenancy Rescission and Damages) / District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord or its agent made actionable misrepresentations inducing the tenant to enter the tenancy agreement
  2. 2 Whether there was an implied term that the premises were fit for use as a learning centre or free of unauthorised structures
  3. 3 Whether the tenant validly rescinded the tenancy and was entitled to return of deposit and damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no actionable misrepresentation by the landlord or its agent and no breached implied term that the premises were fit for a learning centre; the tenant did not rely on alleged representations; the tenant wrongfully repudiated the tenancy; the landlord was entitled to damages but failed to prove full loss claimed and failed to take sufficient evidence of mitigation; damages were assessed at HKD 133,200 and set off against deposits leaving HKD 25,200 payable by the tenant with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendant against the Plaintiff in the sum of HKD 25,200 with interest at judgment rate from date of service of the High Court writ until payment
  • Order nisi for costs to the Defendant assessed on the District Court scale; order nisi to be made absolute after 14 days