Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Break clause

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2022

AFH HONG KONG STORES, LTD v. FULTON CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV201/2021

SC(13) Part [1] ('bare shell' condition on each floor) requires the tenant to return the structural frame of each demised floor, which includes reinstatement of entirely or partly demolished floors absent a valid Part [2] notice; Part [2] requires a specific 9 months' prior written notice by the landlord to require leaving or removal of particular items; the three landlord letters did not constitute valid Part [2] notices; appeal allowed in part, lower court orders set aside and matter remitted for trial on outstanding issues.
4 Aug 2020

LIU JINCHENG v. MICHAEL PETER SCHMIDT

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 28
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2239/2019

The tenancy was validly terminated by the applicant's two months notice served on 25 September 2019 by an agent with ostensible authority; the respondent remained in occupation after termination and therefore became a trespasser liable for mesne profits; the tenant was not entitled to unilaterally deduct rent because the tenancy expressly prohibited deductions and common law does not imply a right to set off absent an express term; limited concessionary abatement was permitted by the Tribunal but did not excuse liability from January 2020 onwards; the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain…
23 Aug 2018

KONG ON TAI AND ANOTHER v. WU WEIWEI

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 70
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1171/2018

The March 26 WeChat message constituted valid written notice under the Break Clause and in any event the April 20 solicitor letter validly exercised the Break Clause terminating the tenancy by 27 May 2018 at the latest; the HK$63,000 payment of 17 April 2018 was accepted or held by the 1st Applicant by mistake and did not create or revive a new tenancy or estop the applicants from enforcing the Break Clause; accordingly the respondent must deliver vacant possession and pay mesne profits and costs.
31 Jul 2018

BALANI CHANDRU AND ANOTHER v. CHUNG KA KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 59
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1124/2018

The Tribunal found on the evidence (WhatsApp communications) that a binding renewal tenancy was formed on 1 February 2018 at HK$12,300 per month and that Ms Chan had ostensible authority to bind the Applicants; stamping was not determinative of enforceability in these proceedings; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused.
15 Jan 2018

WONG SIU MING AND ANOTHER v. YAU SUK YEE

Citation

[2018] HKDC 74
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2491/2017

The court found that there were genuine triable issues and an arguable bona fide defence (notably disputed facts about an alleged oral renewal tenancy and conflicting credibility of witnesses), and therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was inappropriate; the summons was dismissed.
29 Jun 2017

MAK KUM KOK JAMES v. MICHAEL MONAGHAN JOHNSON

Citation

MAK KUM KOK JAMES v. MICHAEL MONAGHAN JOHNSON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3852/2016

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant raised genuine triable issues of fact and law — notably misrepresentation (including agency and notice) and the landlord's duty to mitigate — which required oral evidence and cross‑examination; consequently the matter must proceed to trial and the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
12 Jun 2017

CITY MAKER LTD v. JETCOOL GROUP (WONG\'S) LTD

Citation

CITY MAKER LTD v. JETCOOL GROUP (WONG\'S) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2214/2016

The defendant's account was not believable: the 27 June 2016 letter is inconsistent with an earlier formal notice and with knowledge of any break clause, the defendant had and accepted the written second tenancy agreement (including by WhatsApp), and there was no credible evidence of an oral collateral term or misrepresentation; therefore the written lease governs and summary judgment was correctly entered.
24 Feb 2017

RISING DRAGON INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CHENG MEI LING

Citation

RISING DRAGON INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CHENG MEI LING
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD168/2017

The August Tenancy, entered into and acted upon by both parties from 18 August 2016, superseded and replaced the March Tenancy and is binding on the respondent; stamping anomalies do not resurrect the March Tenancy; respondent must deliver vacant possession and pay arrears under the August Tenancy subject to deduction of proven overpayments and may be relieved from forfeiture if all arrears are paid into the Tribunal by the specified date.
22 Jul 2013

EVER GOLD INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. VINCENT THOMAS

Citation

EVER GOLD INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. VINCENT THOMAS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1138/2013

The defendant failed to show any triable issues or a reasonable defence; alleged illegal structures and defects do not affect the obligation to pay rent or invalidate the tenancy in the absence of expert evidence or express agreement; the adjournment was unjustified and the Registrar's summary judgment order was confirmed subject to a limited 3‑week stay of execution; defendant ordered to deliver possession and pay arrears/mesne profits and costs.
7 Jan 2013

TAM KOK HUNG AND ANOTHER v. WONG WING

Citation

TAM KOK HUNG AND ANOTHER v. WONG WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2470/2012

The trial judge's primary fact-finding that no agreement was made not to exercise the Break Clause was not plainly wrong given the evidence; the defendant accepted in cross-examination that a landlord could sell with vacant possession and that litigation by purchasers could follow, so the plaintiffs' loss was within the defendant's reasonable contemplation and not too remote; the deposit was properly forfeited under the tenancy clause; therefore the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused.