HO CHUNG YIN, ANDREW AND ANOTHER v. SAM KEE GARDEN (HK) LTD

DCCJ4155/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4155 OF 2005

____________________

____________________________________

ASSESSMENT  OF  DAMAGES

____________________________________

1.  In this action interlocutory judgment was entered in default of intention to defend on 3 January 2006.

Background

2.  The plaintiffs became the registered owners of the property known as Shop A, Ground Floor, Fortress Heights, No. 38A Fort Street, North Point, Hong Kong, hereinafter referred to as the said property, on 30 July 2004. 

3.  The property was purchased with an existing tenancy, which commenced on 15 April 2004 for a term of two years, terminating on 14 April 2006 at a monthly rental of $43,740.

4.  At today’s hearing of assessment damages, the plaintiff called as his witness, one of the registered owners, Miss Liau, who gave evidence that the tenant began paying monthly rental to the plaintiffs after the plaintiffs purchased the property.

5.  The tenant failed to pay rental beginning on 15 September 2004.  In spite of repeated demands, the tenant failed to settle the monthly rental.  On 3 November 2004, the tenant quit the said property by a notice in writing to the plaintiffs, enclosing the key, without any prior notice or consent of the landlords.

6.  The plaintiffs now claim rental in arrears for the balance of the unused term.  Since the plaintiffs could not lease out the property for a period of 13 months after the tenant quit the premises, they finally let the property out in December last year at a much reduced rental of $24,800 per month. 

7.  I accept the evidence of Miss Liau that she had approached various estate agencies and put the said property on the market for lease.  But the landlords were not able to let it out at the original rental of $43,740.

8.  Even though the rental was gradually reduced to an asking price of $40,000, even to $30,000 per month, the landlords failed to let out the property for a long period of time.  They eventually let it out at a monthly rental of $24,800 in December 2005.

9.  I accept the evidence of Miss Liau that during this time she had been paying monthly instalments for a mortgage and was anxious to let out the property as soon as possible.

10.  In conclusion, after considering the evidence of Miss Liau, I accept the plaintiffs’ loss in rental is assessed to be 13 months’ rental from 15 November 2004 to 14 December 2005 at $43,740 per month, a total of $568,620, plus five months’ difference in rental between 15 December 2005 and 14 April 2006, that is $43,740 minus $24,800, a difference of $18,940 for five months, for a total of $94,700.  The total loss is assessed to be $663,320, less the deposit of $87,480, making a total of $575,840.

11.  This is the assessed loss, $575,840.  Interest at half-judgment rate from the date of writ to the date of interlocutory judgment and thereafter at judgment rate.  Costs to the plaintiffs to be taxed if not agreed.