29 May 2013
Clause 11 limited the landlord's duty to rectify water seepage but the seepage originated outside the demised premises and was rectified by the management office without plaintiffs' involvement; there was no evidence of plaintiffs' negligence or breach of their repair covenant and therefore no liability for the defendant's claimed losses.
10 Oct 2012
The court found the landlord breached the repair covenant by failing to take reasonable steps after the tenant's written notice; the defects and ongoing water seepage were not de minimis; the tenant proved loss of use and distress and was awarded $16,676.74 for loss of use and $40,000 for distress (total judgment $56,676.74 plus interest). Other claimed items, including extra rental, removal costs, estate agent fee, stamp duty and the gas oven replacement, were dismissed for lack of causal responsibility or because the tenant vacated for reasons unrelated to the defects and lost tenancy right…
30 May 2008
Defendant breached the tenant's repair covenant by failing to notify and remedy defects and did not discharge the burden of proving those defects were due to fair wear and tear or causes outside tenant control; consequential reinstatement and loss of use damages were awarded in specified amounts, with costs apportioned 80% to be paid by Defendant (taxed if not agreed).
1 Dec 2004
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.
8 Apr 2003
The appeal is dismissed: the tenant's defence is barred by res judicata from the earlier struck-out action and, in any event, there is no arguable defence because an assignee landlord is not liable for the assignor's prior breaches and the tenant failed to give the written notice required by the lease; accordingly the Order 14 judgment for rent, forfeiture and possession is affirmed and possession must be returned to the landlord.
25 Aug 2000
The Tribunal adopted the direct comparison method, preferred certain adjustments proposed by the applicant's valuer (notably time adjustments via Jones Lang LaSalle index, floor and size adjustments, and internal condition allowances), accepted the Rating & Valuation Department area for roof, treated the car parking as equivalent to a normal covered car park ($2,000/month), adopted an average adjusted unit rate of $166/sq.m applied to an equivalent area of 200.56 sq.m, deducted $363 for air‑conditioning allowance, fixed the prevailing market rent at $33,000 per month (exclusive of rates and m…
13 Jan 2000
The master's summary judgment was upheld because the Plaintiff provided no independent evidence that the premises were rendered unfit as required by Clause 6, failed to follow Clause 6 procedures, continued occupation (undermining the claim of total unfitness), and Clause 3 barred set-off against rent; a partial stay of HK$300,000 was appropriate to preserve the Plaintiff's claim for damages to be determined at trial.
9 Aug 1996
The court held that (1) Yam J's earlier interlocutory decision that the landlord's claim for the cost of remedial works was not a valid claim is final on that issue in these proceedings and precludes relitigation; (2) however the landlord's alternative claim for lost rent is sufficiently arguable on the facts raised to justify leave to defend. The Defendant is therefore granted leave to defend but is ordered not to plead that it was entitled to withhold the balance of the security deposit by reason of an outstanding claim for the cost of remedial works.