租客毀約後業主損害賠償評估？申索得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：SILVERCORD LIMITED v HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORTS LIMITED - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Master Anthony H K Chan - 判決日期：2020年7月30日 ### 案情摘要 原告SILVERCORD LIMITED為一處位於尖沙咀的商舖物業（「該物業」）的業主，被告HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORTS LIMITED為租客。雙方於2014年7月30日簽訂了為期三年的租賃協議 (Tenancy Agreement)。被告於2016年5月25日通知原告將交還該物業，並單方面退還鑰匙，自2016年5月起停止支付租金和服務費，自2016年7月起停止支付差餉。原告於2016年10月14日收回該物業。原告於2018年7月31日對被告提起訴訟，追討因違反租賃協議而造成的債務和損害賠償。原告已於2018年11月13日獲得針對被告的違約判決 (default judgment)，現正進行損害賠償評估 (assessment of damages)。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於評估被告因違反租賃協議而須向原告支付的損害賠償金額。具體而言，爭議點包括：原告因租金、服務費、差餉及電費損失的金額；收回物業的扣押行動 (distraint action) 費用；以及應計的利息和訴訟費用。被告在整個訴訟過程中均未出庭或參與，因此法庭需根據原告提交的證據來評估損害賠償。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，當業主接受租客的毀約 (repudiation) 時，業主有權追討租賃協議未到期部分的租金、服務費、差餉及重置費用等損害賠償。業主有責任減輕損失 (duty to mitigate)，需合理行事並採取必要措施以市場租金重新出租空置物業，但此責任並不繁重，業主只需在正常業務過程中行事。舉證責任在於租客，證明業主未有減輕損失。法庭接納原告已盡力重新出租該物業，並接受其損害賠償計算方法，包括租金損失、服務費、差餉、扣押行動費用和電費。法庭亦接納租賃協議中訂明的合同利率 (contractual interest rate) 作為判決前利息 (pre-judgment interest)。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例，確立了業主在租客毀約後追討損害賠償及減輕損失責任的法律原則： - Chan Annie v Lau Wai Kwong [1984] HKC 231 - Wing Siu Co Ltd v Goldquest International Ltd (HCA 3183 & 4145/2001, 18 August 2006) ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定被告須向原告支付損害賠償總額港幣1,252,349.19元。此外，被告須就該款項自2018年7月31日起至判決日止，按香港上海匯豐銀行最優惠利率加3%的合同利率支付判決前利息，其後按判決利率支付利息直至全數清償。原告的訴訟費用將按彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 評定為港幣71,090元，並由被告支付。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了業主在租客毀約後，有權追討未到期租賃期間的損失，但同時需履行減輕損失的責任。判決強調，減輕損失的責任並非過於繁重，業主只需在正常業務範圍內採取合理步驟。此外，判決確認了在租賃協議中訂明的合同利率可用作判決前利息的計算基礎，並可按彌償基準評定訴訟費用，這對未來類似的租賃糾紛案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: SILVERCORD LIMITED v HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORTS LIMITED - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Master Anthony H K Chan - Date of Judgment: 30 July 2020 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, SILVERCORD LIMITED, is the landlord of a shop premises in Tsim Sha Tsui ("the Premises"), and the defendant, HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORTS LIMITED, was the tenant. A three-year tenancy agreement was signed on 30 July 2014. On 25 May 2016, the defendant informed the plaintiff of its intention to hand over the Premises and unilaterally returned the keys. The defendant ceased paying rent and service charges from May 2016 and rates from July 2016. The plaintiff re-entered and recovered possession of the Premises on 14 October 2016. The plaintiff initiated legal action on 31 July 2018 against the defendant for debts and damages arising from breach of the tenancy agreement. A default judgment was obtained on 13 November 2018, and the current hearing is for the assessment of damages. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was the assessment of damages payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for breach of the tenancy agreement. Specifically, the points of contention included: the quantum of losses for rent, service charges, rates, and electricity charges; the costs incurred for the distraint action to recover the property; and the applicable interest and legal costs. The defendant was absent throughout the proceedings, requiring the court to assess damages based solely on the plaintiff's evidence. ### Ratio Decidendi The court held that where a landlord accepts a tenant's repudiation, the landlord is entitled to recover damages reflecting the rent of the unexpired portion of the tenancy agreement, service charges, rates, and reinstatement costs. This is subject to a duty on the landlord to mitigate, which requires acting reasonably and taking necessary steps to re-let the vacant premises at market rent. This duty is not onerous, and the landlord is only required to act in the ordinary course of business. The burden of proof for failure to mitigate rests on the tenant. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence of having discharged its duty to mitigate and its method of calculating damages, including lost rent, service charges, rates, distraint action costs, and electricity charges. The contractual interest rate stipulated in the tenancy agreement was also accepted for pre-judgment interest. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following cases were cited, establishing legal principles regarding a landlord's right to claim damages and the duty to mitigate upon a tenant's repudiation: - Chan Annie v Lau Wai Kwong [1984] HKC 231 - Wing Siu Co Ltd v Goldquest International Ltd (HCA 3183 & 4145/2001, 18 August 2006) ### Decision & Orders The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages totaling HK$1,252,349.19. Additionally, the defendant must pay pre-judgment interest on this sum at 3% per annum above the HSBC prime rate from 31 July 2018 until the date of judgment, and thereafter at the judgment rate until full payment. The plaintiff's costs of the action were assessed on an indemnity basis at HK$71,090, to be paid by the defendant. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that landlords are entitled to claim losses for the unexpired term of a tenancy upon tenant repudiation, provided they fulfill their duty to mitigate. The ruling clarifies that the duty to mitigate is not overly burdensome, requiring only reasonable steps within the ordinary course of business. Furthermore, it confirms that contractual interest rates specified in tenancy agreements can serve as the basis for pre-judgment interest and that costs can be assessed on an indemnity basis, providing guidance for similar future landlord-tenant disputes. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.