Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repudiation of tenancy

Legal area

Court

23 Aug 2011

DYNAMIC WISE TRADING LTD v. CHUNG CHI KWONG

Citation

DYNAMIC WISE TRADING LTD v. CHUNG CHI KWONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ167/2004

Refused leave to appeal because the judge concluded the Lands Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in 2003 to entertain claims for common law damages arising from repudiation; s127A did not alter that position; even if the interpretation were wrong it was a moot/arguable point and the defendant's new factual argument was unpleaded and inconsistent with the trial record, so there was no reasonable prospect of success.
2 Jun 2010

DYNAMIC WISE TRADING LTD v. CHUNG CHI KWONG

Citation

DYNAMIC WISE TRADING LTD v. CHUNG CHI KWONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ167/2004

Although the Guarantee imposed secondary liability on the Defendant, the defence of res judicata/abuse of process fails because the Lands Tribunal, prior to the 2008 amendment, lacked jurisdiction to award common law damages for repudiation; therefore the Plaintiff may pursue damages in the District Court and judgment is entered for the Plaintiff in the agreed sum of $175,869.50.
30 Mar 2007

RISING DEVELOPMENT LTD v. JOY GLORY (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

RISING DEVELOPMENT LTD v. JOY GLORY (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1436/2004

The court found that the plaintiff accepted the defendant's repudiation by entering into a sale/assignment of the premises with vacant possession (provisional agreement, formal agreement and assignment) which terminated the tenancy and permitted the plaintiff to recover arrears prior to termination and damages for loss of rental thereafter; consequently Elegant Profit did not apply and the plaintiff was awarded damages accordingly.
19 May 2003

LI KWAN HING v. OZDEN OMER

Citation

LI KWAN HING v. OZDEN OMER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD948/2003

The tenant did not repudiate the tenancy because he sent a Deed of Amendment and demonstrated intention to continue the tenancy; therefore the landlord's claims for possession and mesne profits fail. However the tenant remained liable for arrears of rent and judgment was entered for $10,000 for the period 11 March 2003 to 10 April 2003.
24 Jul 2001

TSANG HING FUNG AND ANOTHER v. MIU YIN CHI PAUL

Citation

TSANG HING FUNG AND ANOTHER v. MIU YIN CHI PAUL
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4017/2001

The Incorporated Owners, not the Plaintiffs, bore statutory responsibility for maintaining the main roof under the Building Management Ordinance; the Plaintiffs therefore had no contractual or tortious duty to repair the roof or the premises and the Defendant was not entitled to unilaterally vacate and repudiate the tenancy. Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs for a net sum of HK$126,411 with interest at 8% p.a. from 1 February 1999; the Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
23 May 2000

BONNA ESTATES CO LTD v. KINGDOM DEVELOPMENT CO LTD t/a FORNARI

Citation

BONNA ESTATES CO LTD v. KINGDOM DEVELOPMENT CO LTD t/a FORNARI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA19182/1998

The court found there was no lawful surrender; the parties' conduct and letter of intent meant the previous tenancy terms continued; the Defendant repudiated the tenancy by non-payment and abandonment, enabling the landlord to re-enter, forfeit the deposit under clause 5(a)(i), and recover unpaid rent, charges and contractual interest under clause 5(a)(ii); damages for lost rent were assessed and judgment entered for the Plaintiff.

Hong Kong Case Law

DYNAMIC WISE TRADING LTD v. CHUNG CHI KWONG

DYNAMIC WISE TRADING LTD v. CHUNG CHI KWONG

RISING DEVELOPMENT LTD v. JOY GLORY (HONG KONG) LTD

LI KWAN HING v. OZDEN OMER

TSANG HING FUNG AND ANOTHER v. MIU YIN CHI PAUL

BONNA ESTATES CO LTD v. KINGDOM DEVELOPMENT CO LTD t/a FORNARI