← Back to all cases

DCCJ342/2021

BENNY LEE WAI KHEONG AND ANOTHER v. LAM KEN CHUNG SIMON AND ANOTHER

EN

Case Details

Case ReferenceDCCJ342/2021
CourtDistrict Court 區域法院
Date Published2026-03-19
LanguageEnglish
NCN[2026] HKDC 480
Claimant / ApplicantBENNY LEE WAI KHEONG and HUI WAI HAN LINDA
Defendant / RespondentLAM KEN CHUNG SIMON and LISA TANG
JudgesDeputy District Judge Alan Yung
Claimant CounselMr Alvin Tsang
Defendant CounselMr Daneel Heung

Judgment Summary

Facts

  • Tenancy Agreement dated 20 May 2019 for 3 years at HK$59,000/month.
  • Block 8 renovation commenced mid-2020 using Traditional Method (bamboo scaffolding).
  • Tenants vacated on 17 August 2020 due to disturbance.
  • Landlords re-let the property in April 2022.
  • Dispute over whether an early termination clause was agreed and subsequently removed.
  • Defendants applied to adduce telephone bills late in trial to challenge evidence of a phone call.

Issues

  • Whether Plaintiffs made misrepresentations about renovation timing and method.
  • Whether Plaintiffs breached the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
  • Whether Defendants were entitled to terminate the Tenancy.
  • Whether the Tenancy Agreement should be rectified to include an early termination clause.
  • Whether Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their loss.
  • Admissibility of late evidence (telephone bills).

Outcome

  • Defendants' application to adduce telephone bills allowed.
  • 2nd Defendant permitted to give supplemental oral evidence explaining the bills.
  • Admissibility to be addressed in closing submissions.
  • Final ruling on claims and counterclaims not contained in the provided text.

Implication

  • Courts may admit late evidence if prompted by a material clarification in the opposing case.
  • Landlords may face liability for disturbances caused by building renovations even if managed by Incorporated Owners.
  • Tenants may argue breach of quiet enjoyment due to scaffolding and noise.
  • Clear documentation of pre-tenancy representations is crucial.

Laws & Authorities Cited

  • §TYT v TLH [2020] HKFC 153
  • §Balram Chainrai v Kushnir Family Holdings Ltd [2018] HKCFI 17
  • §Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  • §Amrol v Rivera [2008] 4 HKLRD 110
  • §Cheung Wei Man & Another v Centaline Property Agency Ltd & Others (HCA 286/2000)
  • §Rules of the District Court, Order 1A