Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Reletting

  • 29 Dec 2023

    SHEK PING CHEUNG DANIEL AND OTHERS v. PRINCE WINNER LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 3342
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA113/2022

    On the unchallenged evidence the Plaintiffs adequately mitigated by actively marketing and re-letting parts of the premises; the court accepted the plaintiffs' quantified loss of rent (HKD 23,171,893.14), rates (HKD 114,518.02), allowed limited reinstatement costs (inspection and cleaning HKD 16,500) and allowed miscellaneous items excluding valuation and unsupported repair claims, resulting in assessed damages of HKD 24,150,076.16; the court permitted set-off of the net deposit HKD 1,928,609.81 and awarded interest at prime plus 1% from the date of the writ and costs HKD 90,000.

  • 6 Dec 2010

    AU KIN FAN v. WONG BIK HAR

    Citation
    AU KIN FAN v. WONG BIK HAR
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3929/2008

    The court accepted Au was the landlord, found the asserted defects (fallen air‑conditioner knob and failed igniters) were minor and did not amount to dangerous conditions or actionable misrepresentation or breach of an implied fitness term; concluded Wong unequivocally terminated the tenancy and thus wrongfully repudiated it; Au properly mitigated his loss and is entitled to damages for repair, lost rent, fees and re‑letting expenses, with the rental deposit credited against assessed loss, resulting in judgment for Au for HK$137,829.50 plus interest and costs.

  • 27 Apr 2007

    HOI CHENG PAN v. HEADSTART EDUCATIONAL GROUP LTD

    Citation
    HOI CHENG PAN v. HEADSTART EDUCATIONAL GROUP LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4028/2006

    The District Court retained jurisdiction throughout because both the Plaintiff's claim as pleaded at commencement and the Defendant's counterclaim exceeded the Small Claims Tribunal monetary limit; the Defendant failed to demonstrate a real and probable opportunity for earlier settlement caused by late disclosure, and failed to take procedural steps to obtain the discovery it now criticises, therefore costs of the action (including the counterclaim and reserved costs) are to be taxed on the District Court scale.

  • 8 Jul 2005

    LEE LAN HING v. LEE SUK YEE

    Citation
    LEE LAN HING v. LEE SUK YEE
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4816/2004

    On the balance of probabilities the landlord did not consent to the defendant's purported early surrender until he re-let the premises in late August 2004; the acts relied on by the defendant were equivocal and insufficient to prove acceptance earlier, therefore the defendant remained liable for rent and consequential damages until re-letting; deposit and utilities credited and interest and costs awarded.

  • 28 Feb 2001

    LEE LAI KUEN, SYRIA v. VENDOME BOUTIQUE CO. LTD.

    Citation
    LEE LAI KUEN, SYRIA v. VENDOME BOUTIQUE CO. LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA8820/1999

    Court accepted plaintiff's calculations for mesne profits ($166,000) and rental difference ($363,545), allowed cost to remove unauthorised structures ($2,200), disallowed recovery of legal costs and stamp duty for re-letting ($6,552.30) because such expenses would have been incurred in any event, credited the forfeited deposit of $100,000 against damages, and awarded net damages of $431,745 with interest at 11.94% from 28 May 1999 and costs of assessment.

  • 1 Dec 2000

    BRILLIANT WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. J & R BOSSINI INTERNATIONAL LTD.

    Citation
    BRILLIANT WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. J & R BOSSINI INTERNATIONAL LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA19509/1998

    Recorder held the plaintiff acted reasonably and promptly to mitigate loss by seeking a new tenant and accepting the licence fee obtained; the surveyor's valuations did not create a triable issue because they assumed willing parties and lacked necessary factual foundation; summary judgment was therefore appropriate and damages (rental differential plus outgoings) with interest under the Agreement were recoverable.

  • 10 Jan 1986

    HANDY INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. HO HSIN HWA

    Citation
    HANDY INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. HO HSIN HWA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA3828/1984

    The lease was validly executed and admissible in evidence upon the plaintiff's solicitor's undertaking; the defendant repudiated the lease by prematurely terminating and vacating, entitling the plaintiff to damages representing lost rent until reletting (accounting for lower reletting rent), reimbursement of half the stamp duty but not any penalty, rates as contractually allocated, and proven repair costs; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence.