屋宇署 對 一個建於馬頭圍道行人路上方並附建於馬頭圍道182-186號晨曦樓及馬頭圍道188號康年閣的外牆的棚架構築物

屋宇署 對 一個建於馬頭圍道行人路上方並附建於馬頭圍道182-186號晨曦樓及馬頭圍道188號康年閣的外牆的棚架構築物

The court refused the out‑of‑time leave application because the applicant’s explanations for delay were not reasonable and the proposed appeal lacked a real prospect of success: the scaffold was properly characterised as building works within the Buildings Ordinance so s24B applied, Labour Department safety approval...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCA 1336
Parties
Applicant: 屋宇署; Respondent: 一個建於馬頭圍道行人路上方並附建於馬頭圍道182-186號晨曦樓及馬頭圍道188號康年閣的外牆的棚架構築物; First Affected Person (applicant in Leave Application): 唐偉德; Second Affected Person: SONO Engineering Limited (盛龍工程有限公司); Third Affected Person: 康年閣業主立案法團; Fourth Affected Person: 黎錫球
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 September 2022
Case Number
CAMP38/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time Against Grant of Priority Demolition Order Under Buildings Ordinance / Decision on Out‑of‑time Leave to Appeal Application (no Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused.
Legal Topics
Priority Demolition Order, Extension of Time for Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Costs
Source Language
ch
Administrative Law Buildings Regulation Civil Procedure Public Safety Priority Demolition Order Extension of Time for Appeal Leave to Appeal Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

屋宇署

Applicant

一個建於馬頭圍道行人路上方並附建於馬頭圍道182-186號晨曦樓及馬頭圍道188號康年閣的外牆的棚架構築物

Respondent

唐偉德

First Affected Person (applicant in Leave Application)

SONO Engineering Limited (盛龍工程有限公司)

Second Affected Person

康年閣業主立案法團

Third Affected Person

黎錫球

Fourth Affected Person

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time Against Grant of Priority Demolition Order Under Buildings Ordinance / Decision on Out‑of‑time Leave to Appeal Application (no Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the scaffold constitutes "building works" under the Buildings Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Department jurisdiction precludes Buildings Department from seeking demolition under s24B
  3. 3 Whether s24B(2)-(4) and s31(1) apply

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the out‑of‑time leave application because the applicant’s explanations for delay were not reasonable and the proposed appeal lacked a real prospect of success: the scaffold was properly characterised as building works within the Buildings Ordinance so s24B applied, Labour Department safety approval did not negate public nuisance or Buildings Department jurisdiction, and the new evidence was immaterial to the core issues (thus no sufficient grounds to extend time).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal out of time refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal out of time is refused.
  • Pursuant to High Court Rules (Cap.4A) Order 59 r2A(8) neither party may request the court to reconsider this decision at an oral hearing.