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.
|
DCCJ6313/2003 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 6313 OF 2003
BETWEEN
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:
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.
Mr B. Ridgeon, of Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the Plaintiff Defendant, in Person, absent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||