Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of covenant

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2025

富嘉花園業主立案法團 v. IN SMART LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 18
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM185/2022

The passageway outside Shop 7 is part of the Covered Walkway and therefore common parts; R2 used it for her fruit business and R1 permitted that use such that both breached Clause 14 of the DMC and ss.34I(1)(a) and (b)(i) of the BMO; the acquiescence defence failed because plaintiffs showed enforcement history, lack of continuous notorious practice affecting nearly all shops, and respondents failed to prove detrimental reliance or a proprietary equity; accordingly mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were granted but damages were dismissed for lack of proven quantum.
18 Dec 2024

CHEN XIAO PEI v. WONG HOI KI

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2157
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4684/2024

On the pleaded facts, taken as admitted by the defendant's default, the plaintiff established breaches of the Deed of Mutual Covenant and/or statutory and tortious duties causing water damage; the court properly exercised its discretion under O 19 r 7 to enter judgment in default and to grant a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to undertake rectification works within eight weeks; damages to be assessed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
11 Feb 2021

CHENG PAN AND ANOTHER v. YAU LAI WAH

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 325
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA376/2015

Defendant altered the flat roof and embedded communal sewage pipes and failed to keep them and the defective waterproofing in repair; this caused soil water to leak into plaintiffs' property; the defendant owed a duty of care and breached DMC covenants and permitted a private nuisance; damages for remedial works and loss of enjoyment were awarded but a permanent injunction was refused as discretionary relief was unnecessary.
23 Sept 2020

駱詠欣對彭君偉

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 39
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD114/2020

Tribunal held applicant could not forfeit the lease for alleged breaches because Cap.219 s58 statutory notice was not served; respondent was not in default entitling forfeiture because he had attempted to pay half the rent to the co-owner and applicant refused receipt; on interpretation the fixed '梗約' ended 30 Nov 2019 and the landlord validly terminated continuance of the '生約' by reasonable written notice given 14 Oct 2019, so applicant entitled to immediate vacant possession and mesne profits; assessed mesne profits at HK$8,000 per month and costs at HK$1,000.
10 Oct 2018

WIN GLORIES LTD v. MAJORLUCK LTD

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 80
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE494/2018

Tribunal found some breaches (hair salon and private tuition centres) but held the applicant had acquiesced in those changes of use such that recovery of possession was not justified; the applicant was given one month under section 58(2) to remedy breaches, failing which the respondent would be ordered to pay damages fixed at HK$10,000 per month per breached stall; overall the application for recovery of vacant possession was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent (HK$5,000).
15 May 2018

HAO TIAN FINANCE CO LTD v. WIN AGAIN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 76
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1955/2014

Plaintiff proved the 1st Defendant breached the mortgage covenant by executing an undisclosed prior mortgage; Plaintiff was entitled to terminate the loan, recover the HK$8,000,000 principal, enforce the contractual interest rate and obtain costs; guarantor was jointly and severally liable; application for sale was adjourned to permit notification to prior mortgagees.
25 Apr 2018

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NO.88 LOCKHART ROAD v. KAR KAR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 884
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2239/2014

The 2nd defendant breached Clause 7(c) of the DMC by permitting the tenant's nuisance because it failed to take reasonable steps within its power to prevent the tenant's excessive use of common areas; consequently the plaintiff would have been bound to win at trial on that claim, so costs are awarded to the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant on the ordinary (party and party) basis including costs of this application with certificate for counsel; indemnity costs are not justified.
19 Dec 2017

PUTAI LTD v. YAU LEE HO AND ANOTHER

Citation

PUTAI LTD v. YAU LEE HO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2666/2013

On the balance of probabilities the backflow was caused by a towel blocking the external drainage pipe; that blockage was an accident and there was no evidence of improper appointment or negligence by the Owners Incorporation, so the third party is not liable; the waste water back-flowed via the water closet in Flat 2B through a non-waterproof floor slab into Flat 1B causing seepage and damage, and the defendants breached the DMC, statutory duties and committed nuisance and negligence; plaintiff entitled to damages of $64,900 plus interest and costs as ordered.
13 Sept 2017

PERRINE CHAMONIX LTD v. STAR LEAGUE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PERRINE CHAMONIX LTD v. STAR LEAGUE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1139/2017

The Plaintiff was awarded costs because it obtained substantially what it sought (cessation of the brothel and undertakings) and the 1st Defendant had no credible defence and acted unreasonably and belatedly in terminating the lease; therefore costs follow the event and justice required costs in favour of the Plaintiff; costs were summarily assessed at HK$280,000.
30 Sept 2015

KWOK HON SHING AND OTHERS v. HAPPY TEAM (CHINA) LTD

Citation

KWOK HON SHING AND OTHERS v. HAPPY TEAM (CHINA) LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE145/2015

On the facts the respondent had committed both an alteration (once-and-for-all) and user (continuing) breach; absence of expert evidence meant electricity overloading allegation failed; the alteration breach was waived by the applicants' acceptance of rent prior to the forfeiture application but the continuing user breaches were not waived; because the breaches had been rectified before the hearing and proceedings were commenced shortly after receipt of rent, the appropriate remedy was to grant relief from forfeiture under section 58 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance while allowing r…