23 Nov 2011
Despite credibility findings, the respondent admitted non-payment and keeping a dog; the signed written tenancy binds the respondent to Clause 11; the solicitor's letter constituted requisite notice; therefore the applicant is entitled to an order for vacant possession, arrears at the contractual rate and costs.
2 Jul 1980
The Defendant (landlord) was liable: it knew of the defective waterproofing at the aperture on 6 July, failed to take adequate remedial steps thereafter and breached both its common law duty of care and Clause 3(b) of the tenancy agreement; the flooding on 30 July was caused by rainwater ingress through the defective sealing (not condensation), damages were awarded to Plaintiffs totalling HKD 38,100 plus interest at 10% from the writ, the Defendant's claim against the Third Party was dismissed because responsibility for cement plastering/sealing rested with the Defendant.