2 Jun 2025
Defendant breached express repair and delivery-up covenants; unchallenged witness and expert evidence proved extensive damage and reasonable remedial costs; accordingly the proper measure of damages is the cost of repairs (HK$341,998) together with loss of rent for the period of remedial works (HK$150,806.45); interest and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
18 Apr 2024
On the balance of probabilities the 2018 documentation and conduct show the second respondent was a tenant; the landlord is estopped from recovering the alleged increased rent from 2019/2020 because it accepted reduced payments over time and did not promptly object; the contractual administrative charge as drafted is punitive and unenforceable so cannot be partially applied; interest not pleaded at trial cannot be awarded; the landlord failed to mitigate and had effective control from 8 May 2021, therefore arrears are limited to that date and the second respondent is ordered to pay HK$50,025.…
5 Apr 2024
The review is dismissed because the applicant failed to serve the statutory section 58 warning notice prior to the cause of action; a termination notice served after judgment cannot remedy that defect and therefore there is no ground for review. The applicant remains free to serve a compliant warning notice and, if breach persists, to commence a fresh possession application.
23 Feb 2024
Out‑of‑time leave to appeal was refused because the application was delayed by over four months without explanation and the respondent failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or other compelling reason; the security deposit could not be credited as rent in‑tenancy; the rehearing/non‑standard review was dismissed as unsupported by cogent legal grounds; no costs were ordered for the interlocutory application.
8 Jan 2024
The application for leave to appeal is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error or exceedance of the tribunal's jurisdiction; the High Court will not disturb the tribunal's factual findings absent such legal error.
1 Dec 2023
The tribunal found the landlord unequivocally manifested an intention not to deliver possession and thereby repudiated the lease; the tenant's conduct (cancelling the deposit cheque and failing to pay rent) amounted to acceptance of that repudiation; therefore the lease was terminated and unenforceable, the landlord could not recover rent or compel specific performance, and the landlord must pay the tenant's costs to be assessed.
27 Jul 2023
The court accepted that the 1st defendant repudiated the tenancy on 10 November 2019 and that the plaintiff properly accepted the repudiation; the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate by marketing the premises and re-letting on 8 June 2020 at the best obtainable market rent (HK$86,000 with a rent‑free period); damages are assessed by contractual entitlements less mitigation and less the security deposits paid, resulting in an award of HK$1,129,748; pre-judgment interest at 1% above HSBC prime is awarded from 10 November 2020 to the date of decision and at judgment rate thereafter; cost…
16 Dec 2022
The High Court found the tribunal erred by accepting uncorroborated oral estimates and by relying on damages not pleaded by the defendant without adequate consideration of the defendant's opportunity to obtain repair estimates; accordingly the tribunal's decision was set aside and the claim remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for rehearing by a different adjudicator.
8 Jun 2022
Leave to appeal was granted because the tribunal failed to consider a key contested issue—whether the deposit had been converted into a night-driver '墊底費'—and its damages assessment lacked evidential support, rendering the tribunal's decision unsafe.
29 Nov 2021
The tenancy expressly required return of the flat in the same repair and condition except fair wear and tear, so the defendants bore the burden to prove pre-tenancy condition and that alleged defects exceeded fair wear and tear; only some items were proved and measured by the extra remedial costs approach (HK$11,100), the defendants' wider claims (including full cabinet replacement and loss of rental) were not established or mitigated, plaintiff entitled to return of deposit balance with interest and defendants liable for plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis.