Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Fixtures and chattels

  • 7 Jan 2014

    KNORR BREMSE ASIA PACIFIC (HOLDING) LTD v. NG LAI CHING LUCIA

    Citation
    KNORR BREMSE ASIA PACIFIC (HOLDING) LTD v. NG LAI CHING LUCIA
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3796/2011

    The court held that there was no actionable breach of an implied condition of fitness for habitation on the yellow water issue; Clause 11 and the tenancy did not create a covenant to repair chattels and the tenant instead owed a tortious duty of care to return chattels; the alleged oral transfer of ownership of non-listed chattels to the Plaintiff was not proved; the Assignment wording did not transfer WTL's pre-assignment causes of action for chattels to the Defendant; most alleged damage to property and chattels amounted to fair wear and tear or inherent defects and were not recoverable, bu…

  • 23 Jul 2008

    TAT MING INVESTMENT CO v. YUI KIMURA

    Citation
    TAT MING INVESTMENT CO v. YUI KIMURA
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3508/2006

    The original notice to quit was ambiguous but was validated by the defendant's 15 March 2006 confirmation and the parties' subsequent conduct such that the operative break date was 30 April 2006; however the defendant failed to pay the April charges and to perform obligations by that operative date (the performance precondition), so the tenancy did not determine on 30 April 2006 and remained in force until forfeiture on 20 July 2006; the defendant also failed to deliver vacant possession on 29 April 2006; judgment entered for plaintiff for arrears, interest and costs.

  • 8 Jun 2005

    ETERNAL SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ORIENTAL WEALTH HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    ETERNAL SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ORIENTAL WEALTH HOLDINGS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA5325/2001

    Polyworld failed to show it remained materially affected by the writ and so had no basis to intervene; the winding up did not constitute a change requiring further leave; the writ was issued in the correct form and its execution was completed on 12 July 2004 so it was spent; contested issues about vagueness, ownership and alleged oppression should be determined in the related HCA1657 trial rather than by setting aside a spent writ.