Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set‑off of deposit

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2022

SPRING TRIUMPH HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SAVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3686
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1550/2021

Plaintiffs took reasonable and sufficient steps to mitigate loss by re-letting within around two months; the unchallenged evidence supported the plaintiffs' calculations of mesne profits, management fees and rates for 12 October 2021 to 31 March 2022 totaling HK$368,698.67; the guarantor is liable under the Guarantee; the plaintiffs may set off the retained deposit of HK$199,815 against the assessed damages; defendants must pay the balance with interest and costs.
4 Sept 2018

梁玉華對劉烱光

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 72
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE578/2018

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds raised issues (repairs, damages) that are outside the Lands Tribunal's jurisdiction, the tenant did not lawfully set off the deposit against rent and did not dispute lease expiry, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason to permit an appeal.
11 Jan 2010

FRANKFURT LTD v. KWAN CHING ON JOE

Citation

FRANKFURT LTD v. KWAN CHING ON JOE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1760/2009

Defendant repudiated the tenancy and plaintiff accepted repudiation; plaintiff proved arrears, the contractual shortfall for the reduced rent period, loss during the vacancy and shortfall for the remainder of the term, and outstanding electricity charges; plaintiff mitigated loss reasonably; deposit of $90,000 credited; net damages assessed at $72,024 and interest and costs ordered nisi; counsel certificate refused as unnecessary.
12 Dec 2002

LUI SUK LING, CINDY v. PROVIDE COURIER SERVICE CO. LTD.

Citation

LUI SUK LING, CINDY v. PROVIDE COURIER SERVICE CO. LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3512/2001

The Court found no surrendered tenancy in respect of the Premises due to absence of accepted written agreement and contemporaneous evidence; the Defendant defaulted on rent from December 2000, entitling the Plaintiff to forfeit the tenancy and recover arrears, mesne profits and outgoings; the Defendant's counterclaim for refund of the deposit was dismissed; judgment for Plaintiff HK$56,567.90 plus costs.
16 Jun 2000

TRI-STAR FABRIC PRINTING WORKS LTD. v. J & R BOSSINI TRADING LTD.

Citation

TRI-STAR FABRIC PRINTING WORKS LTD. v. J & R BOSSINI TRADING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12352/1998

No oral agreement was proved. Delivery of keys by defendant constituted unilateral repudiation. Plaintiffs unequivocally accepted repudiation by actively seeking re-letting. Plaintiffs mitigated their loss reasonably. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to arrears up to acceptance date (24 June 1998) and damages thereafter, with deposits applied, and to costs and interest; judgment entered for specified sums.
16 Jun 2000

SANO SCREEN MANUFACTURERS LTD. v. J & R BOSSINI TRADING LTD.

Citation

SANO SCREEN MANUFACTURERS LTD. v. J & R BOSSINI TRADING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12351/1998

The judge accepted the plaintiffs' testimony, rejected the defendant's claim of an oral agreement, found the defendant repudiated the tenancies by returning keys, found plaintiffs accepted repudiation by re-letting efforts on 24 June 1998, held plaintiffs entitled to arrears to 24 June and damages thereafter subject to mitigation and deduction of deposits, and entered judgment for the specified sums with costs and interest.
24 Jun 1986

CHAN KAM TOI v. MANHATTAN GARMENTS LIMITED

Citation

CHAN KAM TOI v. MANHATTAN GARMENTS LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV52/1986

Clause 5(f) was interpreted to mean that when the tenant installed a replacement air-conditioner it became the landlord's property; the tenant's failure to deliver it up amounted to conversion and the appropriate measure of damages is the market value at the time of conversion plus reasonable reinstallation costs, which the Court assessed at $9,000, leading to allowance of the appeal and dismissal of the landlord's claim.
18 Nov 1971

CHIU CHING WAN v. LUI FUK KAM

Citation

CHIU CHING WAN v. LUI FUK KAM
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ564/1971

On the balance of probabilities the tenancy was a monthly tenancy determined by the undisputed six months notice to quit; tenant liable for arrears from September 1970, but the $880 deposit was properly set off because the landlord had resumed possession prior to the writ, producing judgment for the landlord for the balance of arrears.