Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deposit deduction

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2021

FOXHILL INVESTMENTS LTD v. SINO GOLDEN INTERNATIONAL GROUP HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3662
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2938/2018

Plaintiff had validly accepted the Defendant's repudiation and demonstrated reasonable mitigation by re-letting the premises at a higher rent; accordingly damages were properly assessed at HK$1,699,822.50, interest ordered at the contractual/monthly rate from the date of the writ and thereafter at judgment rate, and costs summarily assessed at HK$100,000.
3 Aug 2021

YU PUI PUI PRISCILLA AND ANOTHER v. CHOW HEI YIN DEREK

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 56
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD843/2021

The earlier judgment dated 8 July 2021 was set aside for irregularity; on the merits the Tribunal held the respondent did not validly surrender the tenancy by vacating and returning keys without the applicants' consent, the alleged defect (foul smell) did not establish a right to terminate the fixed-term tenancy, and therefore the respondent remained liable for rent at $36,000 per month from 28 May 2021 until delivery of vacant possession; costs of $1,200 awarded to applicants and conditional relief from forfeiture granted if arrears and costs paid by the specified relief date.
6 Jun 2016

RANEX INVESTMENTS LTD v. HERO SKY LTD

Citation

RANEX INVESTMENTS LTD v. HERO SKY LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1280/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent failed to identify any error of law or a reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice; the tribunal properly balanced the parties' positions and concluded that assurances about past indulgence and disputes over historic amounts did not excuse compliance with an unless order limited to the adjournment period.
1 Dec 2004

LEE HO SEOK v. KANVEST LTD

Citation

LEE HO SEOK v. KANVEST LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5074/2002

Photographic evidence showed repairs by the tenant were adequate and dirt marks amounted to fair wear and tear; the landlord could not identify extra redecoration costs caused by the tenant beyond costs it would incur in any event, so only proven loss of rental income of HKD 10,967 was recoverable; the remainder of the deposit deductions were unjustified, entitling the plaintiff to judgment for HKD 83,033 plus interest and costs.
19 May 2004

ON PARK PARKING LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

ON PARK PARKING LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11174/1999

The court found the Government failed to deliver vacant possession until 6 March 1999 but On Park failed to prove any loss beyond the refunded rent for 1–5 March; accordingly On Park was entitled only to the rent for that period (already repaid) plus interest and costs up to repayment. West Coast breached its obligation to deliver vacant possession to the Government and is liable to indemnify the Government; West Coast's counterclaim for deposit repayment and its claims against On Park for inducing breach of contract and for implied contractual rights of customers all failed on the evidence a…

Hong Kong Case Law

FOXHILL INVESTMENTS LTD v. SINO GOLDEN INTERNATIONAL GROUP HOLDINGS LTD

YU PUI PUI PRISCILLA AND ANOTHER v. CHOW HEI YIN DEREK

RANEX INVESTMENTS LTD v. HERO SKY LTD

LEE HO SEOK v. KANVEST LTD

ON PARK PARKING LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE