Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Surrender of lease

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2025

CROWN WELL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BILLION ACE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 132
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1898/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found no oral Early Termination Agreement, no effectuating representation by the landlord, and no estoppel or surrender by operation of law. The HK$62,000 was a partial payment for December 2019 arrears, reinstatement requirements were not complied with, without prejudice correspondence was waived and admissible, late documentary applications and amplification were refused as prejudicial. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff; defendant D2 is liable as guarantor for rent, arrears, reinstatement costs and damages together with applicable interest and c…
4 Mar 2022

景辰投資有限公司對楊志源

Citation

[2022] HKDC 133
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4195/2019

The written lease was valid and binding; plaintiff did not make actionable misrepresentations and defendant failed to prove a concluded agreement to terminate; returning keys alone did not effect surrender; defendant repudiated the lease by non‑payment and vacating; landlord fulfilled duty to mitigate; defendant liable for damages of HK$1,631,712 plus interest and costs; counterclaim dismissed.
13 Nov 2020

TOP BRIGHT PROPERTIES CONSULTANTS LTD v. NAEEM AKHTER AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 51
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1051/2020

The respondents failed to prove that the landlord accepted surrender; returning keys and related conduct were equivocal and the Tenancy remained in force. Consequently the respondents are liable for rent as reserved and mesne profits at $12,000 per month from 1 August 2020 to 31 January 2021; costs awarded to the applicant.
9 Aug 2017

WHITE DRAGON LTD v. EVERTIME TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

WHITE DRAGON LTD v. EVERTIME TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD643/2017

Respondent wrongfully repudiated the tenancy by withholding rent and attempting premature surrender; the applicant was not guilty of actionable misrepresentation about timing of renovation; acts of the management office were not attributable to the landlord; keys returned did not operate as surrender; applicant mitigated loss by re-letting and respondent was ordered to pay assessed damages of HK$491,500 and costs of HK$800.
27 Jun 2011

HARKSING INVESTMENT LTD v. TOPLINK HOLDINGS LTD t/a MY PLACE AND OTHERS

Citation

HARKSING INVESTMENT LTD v. TOPLINK HOLDINGS LTD t/a MY PLACE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA219/2008

The guarantor was liable under her written guarantee for the tenant's loss of rent and service charges totalling $2,518,400 because no valid variation or new binding lease to the 3rd defendant was proved and the proposed variation was not pleaded or developed; the landlord failed to prove the claim for repair/damage costs of $1,104,500; interest is payable in accordance with the lease and costs are awarded to the plaintiff at 90% on a common fund basis.
31 Aug 2005

GOOD PROCESS LTD v. GRAND CHEST LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GOOD PROCESS LTD v. GRAND CHEST LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ448/2004

The court held the 2nd defendant liable because the two letters of guarantee were continuing, entire guarantees valid until the lease expired under clause 4 and could not be unilaterally revoked; there was no credible evidence that the plaintiff agreed to set off arrears by taking chattels or licences; demands (oral communications and the formal solicitor's letter) satisfied the guarantee; therefore plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the calculated unpaid sum plus interest and costs.
8 Jul 2005

LEE LAN HING v. LEE SUK YEE

Citation

LEE LAN HING v. LEE SUK YEE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4816/2004

On the balance of probabilities the landlord did not consent to the defendant's purported early surrender until he re-let the premises in late August 2004; the acts relied on by the defendant were equivocal and insufficient to prove acceptance earlier, therefore the defendant remained liable for rent and consequential damages until re-letting; deposit and utilities credited and interest and costs awarded.
24 Sept 2004

領城物業有限公司 v. 麥國強

Citation

領城物業有限公司 v. 麥國強
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2945/2003

The surrender agreement was ineffective because it was executed without authority, ratification was not pleaded and the plaintiff's conduct and limited silence did not constitute unequivocal ratification, and there was no consideration or estoppel sufficient to waive six months' rent; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the outstanding sum.
5 Nov 2003

TENNYSON ESTATE LTD v. WU SHAO ZHANG

Citation

TENNYSON ESTATE LTD v. WU SHAO ZHANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4473/2001

The court found there was no oral agreement to surrender the tenancy, vacant possession was not delivered, and the defendant remained liable under the lease. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for rent arrears and proportionate reinstatement and loss after re-entry subject to mitigation; the pleaded equitable estoppel failed for lack of pleaded particulars and adverse factual findings.
5 Nov 2003

PERFECT LAND IND CO (a firm) v. SKYCITY UNIVERSAL LTD

Citation

PERFECT LAND IND CO (a firm) v. SKYCITY UNIVERSAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA227/2001

Court found no oral surrender or agreement to share future losses; defendant left for financial reasons; vacant possession was not delivered; plaintiff entitled to judgment for unpaid rent and related sums, subject to mitigation of post-reentry loss and proportionate reinstatement award, with credit for deposit and interest from re-entry and costs to be taxed.