Halesite Ltd v. Ng Sai on, Ivan

Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 6313/2003 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 24 March 2005.

1. The plaintiff took out an action against the defendant for unpaid rental.  Interlocutory judgment was obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant on 18 October 2004.  The defendant failed to acknowledge service or file a defence in the claim.  The hearing was conducted therefore in the absence of the defendant following substitute service on the defendant.

Case No.DCCJ 6313/2003
Court
District Court
Date24 Mar 2005
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCJ6313/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6313 OF 2003

                                     

BETWEEN

  HALESITE LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  NG SAI ON, IVAN Defendant

                                     

Coram: H H Judge H C Wong in Court

Date of Hearing: 24 March 2005

Date of Delivery of Assessment of Damages: 24 March 2005

                                                    

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

                                                    

1.The plaintiff took out an action against the defendant for unpaid rental.  Interlocutory judgment was obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant on 18 October 2004.  The defendant failed to acknowledge service or file a defence in the claim.  The hearing was conducted therefore in the absence of the defendant following substitute service on the defendant.

2.The plaintiff is the registered owner of Shop B, Ground Floor of Mercantile House, 186A Nathan Road, Kowloon, hereinafter referred to as the premises.  The defendant’s claim is based on the tenancy agreement in writing between the parties executed on 15 June 2001.  The premises was let by the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of 36 months from 16 June 2001 to 15 June 2004 at the monthly rental of $85,000, excluding rates, management charges and government rent (“the said tenancy”).

3.On 28 April 2003, the parties executed a supplemental tenancy agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to grant to the defendant further month rent-free periods within the said tenancy regarding the said tenancy.  The defendant failed to pay rent in May and June 2003, and on 15 July 2003, the plaintiff repossessed the premises.  In order to mitigate its loss and damage, the plaintiff advertised and sent particulars on the said premises to different estate agents; it was not able to let out the premises until August 2003 and rental was not received until 1 October 2003.  The new tenancy rental was $75,000 per month and therefore there was a shortfall of $10,000 a month compared to the said tenancy.

4.I accept the evidence of Miss Lee Wai-ling, PW1, the executive secretary of the holding company of the plaintiff.  She produced the documents and the calculations of the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff. 

Assessment:

5.Rental in arrears and mesne profits:

1 May 2003 to 14 June 2004 at $85,000    
(for 12.5 months)

$1,062,500

 
Rates:    
1 July 2003 to 14 August 2003

$2,323.37

 
Management charges:    
1 June 2003 to 14 August 2003

$3,211.61

 
Subtotal

$1,068,034.98

 
Less:    
rental from the new tenant from 1 October 2003 to 15 June 2004  
8.5 months at $75,000 per month

$637,500

 
The sum due:

$430,534.98

 

6.I assess the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff to be the aforesaid sum of $430,534.98, and the defendant is liable to pay this claim with interest to the plaintiff.  Interest is at half judgment rate from the date of writ until the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until full payment.  Costs to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.

  (H C Wong)
District Judge

Mr B. Ridgeon, of Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the Plaintiff

Defendant, in Person, absent