Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Lease

  • 14 Dec 2016

    WONG CHUN CHOI also known as WONG CHEUN CHOI AND OTHERS v. MAK TAK SUM, also known as MAN SUM

    Citation
    WONG CHUN CHOI also known as WONG CHEUN CHOI AND OTHERS v. MAK TAK SUM, also known as MAN SUM
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3902/2013

    The court granted leave to amend the summons but refused the declaratory relief sought as unnecessary and kept the wording of clause 3.2 in the lease identical to clause 3.2 of the settlement agreement, holding that the settlement wording best reflected the parties' intention; the court ordered specific performance steps (execution and registration of Deed Poll and lease and delivery to defendant's solicitors by 20 Jan 2017) and allocated costs: defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the amendment application, plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the hearing before the court (approx.…

  • 18 Jul 2012

    CHINA RESOURCES PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. MAX MERIT LTD

    Citation
    CHINA RESOURCES PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. MAX MERIT LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2012/2010

    Defendant breached clause 18 by failing to replace 14 damaged aluminium ceiling panels and is liable to indemnify plaintiff for replacement costs (HK$140,000). The ceiling fans and spotlights were chattels not fixtures and clause 5 was not breached. Late-disclosed photographs and project documents were inadmissible. Plaintiff was not entitled to forfeit the deposit; defendant entitled to balance return of HK$70,203.36. Costs and interest ordered accordingly.

  • 11 Jun 2008

    TAM ON KWAI AND OTHERS v. TANG HOI WO

    Citation
    TAM ON KWAI AND OTHERS v. TANG HOI WO
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1802/2006

    Defendant did not establish a real and bona fide defence to non‑payment: material inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence as to alleged payments, the pleaded deposits did not establish rent paid on defendant's behalf, alleged custom could not displace express lease term requiring monthly rent in advance, and no valid extension or exercise of option was proved; accordingly summary judgment entered for plaintiffs for possession, arrears, mesne profits and costs, and the counterclaim was struck out as self‑contradictory and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

  • 9 Dec 2004

    CHEONG NIN INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOKYO SHOP LTD

    Citation
    CHEONG NIN INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOKYO SHOP LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA309/2004

    The Rent Clause, which expressly disallows any deduction or right of set-off (whether legal or equitable), is sufficiently clear to preclude the tenant's equitable set-off and to permit summary judgment for possession and arrears; the quiet enjoyment clause does not create a positive repair covenant and does not excuse non-payment of rent.

  • 27 Feb 2002

    WONG WAN LEUNG AND OTHERS v. CHU PAK SANG

    Citation
    WONG WAN LEUNG AND OTHERS v. CHU PAK SANG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA8401/1993

    The sub-lease was validly forfeited: the defendant breached repair covenants, received statutory notice and failed to remedy the breach; the issuance of the writ of summons operated as re-entry and related back to the commencement of proceedings, therefore from 21 September 1993 the sub-lessee had no entitlement to the land and judgment for possession is entered for the plaintiffs.

  • 8 Jan 2001

    Realink Paging Ltd. v. Empire Champion Ltd.

    Citation
    Realink Paging Ltd. v. Empire Champion Ltd.
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6705/2000

    The steps were an unauthorised extension and formed part of what was represented as being let; that representation and the plan were admissible and entitled the plaintiff to withdraw; clause 14 is a valid contractual compensation clause (not a penalty) and entitles plaintiff to refund and equivalent compensation; tenant estoppel did not apply to this provisional agreement; accordingly there was no defence and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff.

  • 8 Nov 1995

    FIRST PACIFIC BANK LTD. v. CEN PHONE CO. LTD. and Others

    Citation
    FIRST PACIFIC BANK LTD. v. CEN PHONE CO. LTD. and Others
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2349/1995

    Registrar accepted the Plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence and computations, held the 2nd and 3rd Defendants liable under their guarantee, and assessed damages at $589,342.28 with interest at 2% per month from 2 March 1995 and costs on an indemnity basis.

  • 11 Sept 1995

    CHAN YU v. LE WONG

    Citation
    CHAN YU v. LE WONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA8975/1994

    Because the owner ratified the lease by document produced on 9 January 1995 (and later confirmed), the defendant should have realized he had no sensible defence to the main claim from that date; accordingly the default judgment is set aside only as to specified minor items (electricity charges), the counterclaim is dismissed, the court orders payment of the monies paid into court to the plaintiff, conditional surrender of possession after 30 September 1995 subject to interim payments, interest on the paid-in sum from 9 January 1995, and allocates costs to the defendant up to 9 January 1995 an…

  • 18 Sept 1985

    THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISE LIMITED v. YU KWAI CHI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISE LIMITED v. YU KWAI CHI AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA4158/1985

    Although there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured refusing the interim injunction because (a) the Building Authority and Director of Fire Services had to date chosen negotiation/letters rather than enforcement and retain full statutory powers, (b) granting the injunction risked extinguishing the defendant's established business and (c) the plaintiff had voluntarily let premises for an unapproved use, so the prudent course was to preserve the status quo pending the substantive hearing.

  • 13 Mar 1983

    HONG KONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MAURIEILO LTD

    Citation
    HONG KONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MAURIEILO LTD
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV40/1983

    The Court upheld the Judge in Chambers' substantive reformulation of the claim after the defendant's accepted surrender and amendment of pleadings, thereby leaving only the limited issue of entitlement to the rent difference for the period up to handover; however the Judge's allocation of costs before the Master was wrong and the appellate court directed that Hong Kong Island should have costs before the Master and made no order as to costs before the Judge or the Court of Appeal.