17 Aug 2005
BLOOMARK INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU YIM KEUNG AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- BLOOMARK INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU YIM KEUNG AND ANOTHER
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ5779/2002
The notice to extend was a valid exercise of the unilateral option and bound both defendants; the tenancy agreement created an obligation for interim payments pending rent determination; the transfer to Mr Poon was not completed or approved by Management and therefore did not release D2; the agent lacked authority to effect a binding transfer so there is no equitable estoppel; resignation from partnership does not discharge liability absent an endorsed transfer; accordingly judgment for plaintiffs for the claimed sum with interest and costs follows.