TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS

TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS

Applicants were estopped and had waived their right to dispute authority/authenticity of attendees because they had participated in the 17 August 2000 meeting, returned and cast votes after initially objecting; their conduct constituted a clear and unequivocal representation relied upon by others causing detriment; accordingly the review was dismissed and original decision affirmed.

Citation
TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Applicant: Triumphal Fountain Limited; 2nd Applicant: Ng Kam Tong; 1st Respondent: Chan Chi Lun; 2nd Respondent: Chui Hor Yun Helen; 3rd Respondent: Cheung Wing Fai; 4th Respondent: Mak Tze Lok
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 January 2002
Case Number
LDBM309/2001
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application (lands Tribunal) / Review Under Section 11 a (decision on Review)
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; judgment for Respondents affirmed.
Legal Topics
Estoppel by Conduct, Promissory Estoppel, Waiver, Owners Incorporation, Validity of Votes/proxies, Service of Process, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Equity Tribunal Procedure Building Management Law Estoppel by Conduct Promissory Estoppel Waiver Owners Incorporation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Triumphal Fountain Limited

1st Applicant

Ng Kam Tong

2nd Applicant

Chan Chi Lun

1st Respondent

Chui Hor Yun Helen

2nd Respondent

Cheung Wing Fai

3rd Respondent

Mak Tze Lok

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application (lands Tribunal) / Review Under Section 11 a (decision on Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants are estopped by conduct from disputing authority and identity of attendees at 17 August 2000 meeting
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Applicant waived rights to object to authority/authenticity by returning and voting
  3. 3 Whether there was reliance and detriment sufficient for equitable estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants were estopped and had waived their right to dispute authority/authenticity of attendees because they had participated in the 17 August 2000 meeting, returned and cast votes after initially objecting; their conduct constituted a clear and unequivocal representation relied upon by others causing detriment; accordingly the review was dismissed and original decision affirmed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; judgment for Respondents affirmed.

Orders

  • Order nisi: no order as to costs
  • Leave granted to either party to apply to vary the costs order within 14 days