Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rental deposit

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2026

CHAN TSZ CHUN v. ZHANG JINGEN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 651
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA43/2025

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the claimant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law: the Deputy Adjudicator’s factual findings on causation (including the HK$5,500 mover charge) and on ordinary wear and tear were reasonable and supported by evidence, and the Deputy Adjudicator afforded the claimant adequate opportunity to be heard on costs and properly exercised his discretion.
16 Jan 2026

MODERN BEAUTY SALON (HK) LTD v. KING ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 115
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2216/2019

Tenant breached express covenants (clauses 5.03, 5.23, 5.25 and related schedules) by allowing or causing disconnection of air‑conditioning power and removal of BMS controls and by leaving certain window glass with impact pits; these breaches justified reasonable deductions from the rental deposit under clause 12.01. The court assessed contemporaneous documents and expert reports, allowed specific deductions totaling HK$762,894.08 as reasonable repair costs and loss of rental, and ordered refund of the balance HK$417,680.92 to the Plaintiff; contractual interest under clause 12.03(1) did not…
24 Jan 2020

HO KAI MAN AND ANOTHER v. BONNIE VEGETABLES & FRUIT WHOLESALE LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 123
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4925/2016

Although defendant was enriched by HK$154,316 at the plaintiffs' expense, the enrichment was not unjust because the payment secured the plaintiffs' bargained-for licence to occupy the stall and the rental deposit was integral to that licence; there was no total failure of consideration and restitution is refused.
16 Dec 2019

ASC LOGISTICS (CHINA) LTD v. HO MEI YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1679
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ894/2019

Plaintiff's claims were dismissed because the pleaded case and evidence were inconsistent and insufficient: possession in April–May 2015 was with plaintiff's consent so trespass damages for that period fail; the Assets were not pleaded or particularized and their value not proved so delivery up and alternative valuation claims fail (except two specific trucks which evidence showed were not owned by defendants and should be returned); the rental deposit shortfall was a matter against the landlord, not a proper conversion claim against defendants; accordingly only return of the gas forklift and…
14 Dec 2018

THE CAPITAL MARKETS CO LTD v. CHONG LAI SHAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2669
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA23/2018

The defendant failed to raise any arguable question of law or jurisdiction under section 28 Cap 338; the Deputy Adjudicator's factual findings that vacant possession was delivered on 31 October 2016 and that only specified repair costs and three days' rental loss were recoverable were supported by the evidence and not subject to reversal on a leave application; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
12 May 2015

HSIEH MING YIN v. AU SIN YEE also known as AU SIN YEE SHIRLEY

Citation

HSIEH MING YIN v. AU SIN YEE also known as AU SIN YEE SHIRLEY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2656/2014

The registrar erred in requiring the defendant to set aside the Judgment before discharging the garnishee order; the garnishee proceedings were unjustified because the plaintiff held a rental deposit sufficient to satisfy the Alleged Debt and the defendant had effectively extinguished the debt by the time of the second hearing; accordingly the Order Absolute and Order Nisi are set aside and costs are ordered against the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
18 Jan 2013

KONG LAI RESTAURANT LTD (in liquidation) v. SWALLOW KINGDOM PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

KONG LAI RESTAURANT LTD (in liquidation) v. SWALLOW KINGDOM PROPERTIES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1332/2012

The tenant’s right to repayment never crystallised because the tenancy was forfeited for breaches and the tenancy agreement permitted set-off against rent arrears; assignment of the reversion and transfer of the deposit with an indemnity to the assignee did not revive any entitlement; therefore the plaintiff’s claim to the deposit was unarguable and properly struck out, summary judgment for the plaintiff must fail, and the court will not at this stage order security for costs though the plaintiff remains liable for taxed costs of the defendant.
3 Oct 2012

張淑嫺 v. CHIK WAI YIN

Citation

張淑嫺 v. CHIK WAI YIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3428/2010

Landlord failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused the mould or other alleged damage and produced insufficient evidence on quantum; tenant obliged to surrender premises at tenancy expiry and was liable for mesne profits for 5–14 August 2010; netting of entitlements resulted in an award to the tenant of HKD 8,671 plus interest and costs nisi.
23 Apr 2012

LAI YU SAN AND OTHERS v. WONG KWAN KIT

Citation

LAI YU SAN AND OTHERS v. WONG KWAN KIT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3360/2010

Clause 8 did not bind the defendant to perform the Hongkong Electric agreement because the obligations under that agreement were not disclosed to or agreed by the defendant; only obligation under clause 8 was to retain the two electricity metres. The rental deposit cheque issued at handover was not supported by consideration because the purchaser had already paid the purchase price and the deposit was part of company assets; plaintiffs' claims fail. Defendant entitled to reimbursement of apportioned rental and electricity charges and ordered assistance in transferring the restaurant licence;…
8 Jul 2010

JOYFUL SPARKLE CO LTD v. NG PIK CHU t/a SHAN YAU CO

Citation

JOYFUL SPARKLE CO LTD v. NG PIK CHU t/a SHAN YAU CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1881/2008

Plaintiff's absence entitled the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim; defendant's evidence and contemporaneous documents established entitlement to the counterclaim for HK$83,000, interest from the date of the writ and costs; therefore judgment is entered for the defendant for the stated sums and costs.