WU CHIEH YUN v. HIDEICHI NAKAMURA

WU CHIEH YUN v. HIDEICHI NAKAMURA

The Court found as a fact that the parties agreed a monthly tenancy from 15 October 2011 at HK$23,000 per month, the Defendant was a party to that tenancy (and could be sued personally as an undisclosed agent), the HK$140,000 paid represented prior rental/guarantee and could not be applied to the current arrears, the Defendant failed to establish any triable issue or believable defence (including set‑off for repairs), and therefore summary judgment was properly granted for vacant possession, arrears, mesne profits, interest and costs.

Citation
WU CHIEH YUN v. HIDEICHI NAKAMURA
Parties
Plaintiff: WU CHIEH YUN; Defendant: HIDEICHI NAKAMURA
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 April 2013
Case Number
DCCJ4379/2012
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application — Possession and Rent Recovery / Decision (summary Judgment)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Vacant Possession, Mesne Profits, Set Off, Security Deposit, Repair Obligations, Agency/guarantee
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Contract Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Vacant Possession Mesne Profits Set Off Security Deposit +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WU CHIEH YUN

Plaintiff

HIDEICHI NAKAMURA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application — Possession and Rent Recovery / Decision (summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the post‑2011 arrangement was a 2‑year tenancy or a monthly tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was a party to the tenancy and liable personally
  3. 3 Whether HK$140,000 received by the Plaintiff could be set off against the arrears

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found as a fact that the parties agreed a monthly tenancy from 15 October 2011 at HK$23,000 per month, the Defendant was a party to that tenancy (and could be sued personally as an undisclosed agent), the HK$140,000 paid represented prior rental/guarantee and could not be applied to the current arrears, the Defendant failed to establish any triable issue or believable defence (including set‑off for repairs), and therefore summary judgment was properly granted for vacant possession, arrears, mesne profits, interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Vacant possession of Unit A on 3rd Floor, Block 11, Richwood Park and Car Parking Space 166 to be delivered to the Plaintiff.
  • Judgment for HK$96,533 plus interest on that sum at 8% per annum from the date of Writ until day of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until full payment.