Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Distraint

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2022

THE ONE PROPERTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHINESE ESTATES (THE ONE) LIMITED) v. STAR WIN ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 662
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT544/2022

The court held that section 93(1) LTO may be invoked before seizure and that the plaintiff, having failed to disclose ongoing related actions and the live dispute over clause 8 in ex parte applications, breached the duty of full and frank disclosure; because distraint is draconian and there is a bona fide serious dispute, it was just to suspend (not discharge) the warrants pending the outcomes of the related DCCJ and HCA actions.
19 Nov 2020

THE CENTER (76) LTD v. VICTORY SERVICED OFFICE (HK) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2881
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1020/2020

On construction of the Tenancy Agreement and Supplemental Letter there is a single primary rent obligation; the Supplemental Letter suspended (did not create a secondary) obligation so repayment of three months' rent is not a penalty; clause 9.3 effects a deemed (not automatic) reduction and does not permit set-off of rent against deposit; frustration and Act of God defences fail on facts; Plaintiff entitled to summary relief in the form of interim payment for total outstanding sums and continuing monthly interim payments with provision for final judgment on default.
14 Oct 2020

HILLSBOROUGH HOLDINGS LTD v. WONG YEE MAN

Citation

[2020] HKDC 920
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5206/2018

The landlord was entitled to recover net distraint costs, reinstatement costs and loss of rent, service charges and rates for the unexpired term subject to a duty to mitigate; the landlord acted reasonably in marketing and accepting a lower market rent and in tendering reinstatement works; damages totalled HKD 360,806.28 minus the HKD 65,700 deposit yielding final judgment HKD 295,106.28 with interest and costs awarded.
26 Feb 2019

TOP ABLE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v. NG PUN KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 498
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2659/2017

Landlord was entitled to recover damages for unpaid rent and outgoings from the date of repudiation/re‑entry to the end of the tenancy subject to mitigation; re‑letting with a rent‑free period did not negate recovery for that period because the rent‑free concession was an ordinary commercial term and caused loss to the plaintiff; advertising and agent commission were not recoverable as they would have been incurred regardless; reinstatement and distraint costs were recoverable and deposit credited against the sum.
12 Feb 2019

WINDSOR HOUSE LTD (formerly known as Chinese Estates (Windsor House) Ltd) v. LEGEND GLORY CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA940/2017

Master accepted plaintiff's evidence that the tenant repudiated the tenancy, that the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate loss, and that claimed reinstatement and distraint costs were reasonable and recoverable under the tenancy; awarded the full quantified losses for the unexpired term, allowed set-offs of distraint proceeds and deposits, granted pre-judgment interest at prime plus 1% from writ to judgment and assessed costs summarily at HK$69,045 (order nisi).
12 Feb 2019

WINDSOR HOUSE LTD (formerly known as Chinese Estates (Windsor House) Ltd) v. SHINING SOURCE HOLDING GROUP (Hong Kong) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 279
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3405/2016

Master found tenant repudiated the tenancy by abandoning the premises; plaintiff took reasonable mitigation steps; awarded full claimed loss of rent, service charges and rates for period to lease expiry, reinstatement costs and distraint costs; set off deposit; awarded pre-judgment interest at prime+1% from writ to judgment and judgment rate thereafter; summarily assessed costs payable by defendant HK$67,045 (order nisi).
17 Aug 2018

HILLSBOROUGH HOLDINGS LTD v. CHEUNG YEE WO

Citation

[2018] HKDC 976
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4822/2016

The court allowed recovery of the distraint expenses ($9,097.60) and reinstatement costs ($33,600.00) in full and allowed the claimed loss of rent, service charges and rates ($91,106.77) because although the plaintiff failed to offer the premises for re-letting immediately upon repossession (a failure to mitigate), the evidence established that even had the plaintiff offered earlier re-letting the premises would not likely have been re-let before the agreement expiry (29 Feb 2016) due to market conditions and the shops' unfavorable location. The court deducted the two security deposits ($52,4…
27 Jul 2018

HILLSBOROUGH HOLDINGS LTD v. CHAN HANG HO COSCO

Citation

[2018] HKDC 911
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3024/2016

The court accepted plaintiff's documentary evidence and parts of witness evidence as credible; allowed distraint expenses ($13,190.4) and reinstatement costs ($10,300) in full; accepted claimed loss of rent, service charges and rates but deducted $3,000 for plaintiff's failure to offer the premises for re-letting immediately after repossession (failure to mitigate from 1 Aug 2015); credited deposit of $67,725; awarded total damages of $114,997.2; awarded interest at 6% p.a. from 23 June 2016 to date of judgment and indemnity costs of $55,000.
20 Apr 2018

GOLDCREST MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS LTD v. GREAT WISH CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2018] HKDC 416
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT307/2018

The claimant failed to prove ownership and did not justify an adjournment because the evidence was inadequate, suggested deliberate withholding, and the documents sought (bank records/cheque images) would not bridge the gap between proof of payment and proof of ownership; further delay would prejudice the landlord by permitting continued use of distrained goods and defeating the distraint remedy; claim dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
24 Nov 2017

LINCOLN (H.K.) LTD v. KHAN, MOHAMED AFZAL

Citation

LINCOLN (H.K.) LTD v. KHAN, MOHAMED AFZAL
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT2042/2017

Even assuming arguendo the five‑day time limit issue could be contested, the defendant's factual case fails because the alleged oral variations were made with a person who had no evidence of authority to bind the plaintiff; therefore the defendant remained liable under the written tenancy agreement, the warrant was validly issued and must not be discharged.