Hong Kong Judgment

District Court

SAR DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. WORLDEX STONE CLADDING ENGINEERING LTD

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because the defendant admitted occupation and agreed a monthly rent of $4,560, and the defendant's counterclaim did not plead or prove damages exceeding the plaintiff's claim, the court granted an interim payment of $95,760 with specified interest and ordered monthly payments of $4,560 until trial or further order; claims for rates were deferred because areas were disputed; no order as to costs.

Court disposition

Application allowed in part; interim payment ordered

Orders

  • Defendant to pay $95,760 to the plaintiff within 21 days with interest at 50% judgment rate from 19 May 2007 to date and at judgment rate from 11 November 2008 until payment
  • From 15 November 2008 and thereafter on the 15th day of each month, defendant to pay $4,560 to the plaintiff within 7 days of each such 15th day until trial or further order
  • No order for payment of rates due to disputes over areas; no order as to costs

02

Material facts

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Kwong Ting-chung, Messrs Leung Kin & Co.

Defendant

Defendant Counsel: Mr Wong Chun-fai (in person)

Amounts and remedies

  • Monthly Rent: HKD 4,560
  • Interim Payment Total: HKD 95,760

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Interim Payment Application (order 29 Rule 12) / District Court Interim Application Hearing Decision

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff applied for interim payment for arrears of rent and/or mesne profits up to 14 May 2008 and rates to 31 March 2007 in respect of occupation of specified land; the plaintiff relied on an agreed monthly figure of $4,560 for the piece of land coloured purple and sought payment of $95,760 for the period 15 February 2007 to 14 November 2008 together with interest and monthly instalments of $4,560 until trial or further order; other parcels could not be quantified so no sum was claimed for them.
Respondent
The defendant admitted occupation and accepted liability to pay $4,560 per month pursuant to the parties' 22 September 2008 agreement but objected to immediate interim payment on the basis that its counterclaim allegedly involved larger damages; however the counterclaim did not plead figures or demonstrate damages exceeding the plaintiff's claim and the defendant disputed areas for rates assessment.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 29 rule 12, Rules of the District Court

    Court may order interim payment for use and occupation under the District Court rules

  2. 02

    Pleading standards / District Court practice

    A defendant seeking to defeat an interim payment must plead and adduce evidence of damages/quantum sufficient to show the counterclaim exceeds the interim sum

  3. 03

    District Court decision (this judgment)

    Court may award interest at different rates for different periods where justified

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because the defendant admitted occupation and agreed a monthly rent of $4,560, and the defendant's counterclaim did not plead or prove damages exceeding the plaintiff's claim, the court granted an interim payment of $95,760 with specified interest and ordered monthly payments of $4,560 until trial or further order; claims for rates were deferred because areas were disputed; no order as to costs.

Obiter and limits

  • No order for rates could be made because the areas covered by the tenancy agreement were in dispute and could not be ascertained
  • Plaintiff succeeded only in part and accordingly the court made no order as to costs

Court disposition

Application allowed in part; interim payment ordered

  • Defendant to pay $95,760 to the plaintiff within 21 days with interest at 50% judgment rate from 19 May 2007 to date and at judgment rate from 11 November 2008 until payment
  • From 15 November 2008 and thereafter on the 15th day of each month, defendant to pay $4,560 to the plaintiff within 7 days of each such 15th day until trial or further order
  • No order for payment of rates due to disputes over areas; no order as to costs

Source and reliance status

District Court · 10 November 2008

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

District Court

Judgment· 10 November 2008

SAR DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. WORLDEX STONE CLADDING ENGINEERING LTD

bjbj yr@S|vU\ gP z gP e gP the plaintiff s application for interim payment for arrears of rent and/or mean profits due and payable by the defendant up to 14 May 2008 and the areas of rates (half share) due and payable by the defendant up to 31 March 2007 under Order 29 rule 12 of the Rules of the District Court in respect of the use and occupation of the land on the remaining portion of Lot No.710, a portion of Lot No.709 and a portion of Lot No.707, all in demarcation district No.114. The defendant admits that the land coloured purple as depicted on page 96 of the hearing bundle is being occupied by it,and there is no dispute that this piece of land was properly rented out to the defendant. It further claims that it is liable to pay to the plaintiff $4,560 per month for occupying this piece of land. Both parties made an agreement on 22 September 2008 to that effect. Under this agreement the plaintiff does not dispute on this figure. The plaintiff also makes claim on other pieces of land marked indigo, green, orange on page 96 of the hearing bundle. But even if it succeeds on these claims, there is no evidence as to how much should be paid for the defendant s occupation of these said pieces of land, because there is no evidence to show the total areas that make up these other pieces of land for the purpose of making calculation of payment. The defendant objects to an order to

be made for the payment of $4,560, saying that under its counterclaim, the damages occasioned by the plaintiff are much bigger than this interim payment. But the counterclaim appearing on page 13 of the hearing bundle makes no clear reference to the term damages and no figures have been pleaded in respect of damages suffered by it. There is no evidence pleaded in the counterclaim showing that the damages suffered by the defendant exceeds the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant s argument must fail. I order that the defendant do pay, within 21 days from today, the amount of $95,760 to the plaintiff for the period covering 15 February 2007 to 14 November 2008 with interests thereon at 50 % judgment rate commencing from 19 May 2007 up to and including today, and at judgment rate from 11 November 2008 until payment, and that from the 15th day of each month, commencing from 15 November 2008 the defendant is to pay, within 7 days from the said 15th day of each calendar month, to the plaintiff the said sum of $4,560 until trial or further order. There is no order to be made by me for payment of rates as there are disputes on the areas covered by the tenancy agreement. Until and unless such disputes are resolved, the amount of rate still payable by the defendant cannot be ascertained. (Discussion re costs) The plaintiff only succeeds in part of its claim in this summons and fails in the other part. I therefore make no order as to costs in respect of this summons application. (Chow) District Court Judge Representation: Mr Kwong Ting-chung, of Messrs Leung Kin & Co., for the Plaintiff Mr Wong Chun-fai (O5A Director), in person, present.

PAGE -

PAGE - CRT7/10.11.2008/SY DCCJ2193/2007/Decision

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V &`#$ &`#$ Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Order 29 rule 12, Rules of the District Court

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.