采建有限公司 對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人

采建有限公司 對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人

Leave to appeal was refused because the tribunal correctly found on the remitted facts that claimant provided management services, defendants were enriched by those services at claimant's expense, no valid change of position defence was established, and there was no legal error in proceeding on an unjust enrichment/quasi-contract basis or in the tribunal's handling of evidence; defendants failed to show an arguable appeal on law.

Citation
采建有限公司 對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人
Parties
Claimant (respondent): 采建有限公司; First Defendant (appellant): YAN KWOK CHO; Second Defendant (appellant): TAM PO OI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 June 2017
Case Number
HCSA16/2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Management Fees, Unjust Enrichment, Change of Position Defence, Deed of Mutual Covenant (public Covenant), Building Management Ordinance Schedule 7, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
CH
Property Law Contract and Quasi Contract (unjust Enrichment) Civil Procedure Building Management Law Management Fees Unjust Enrichment Change of Position Defence Deed of Mutual Covenant (public Covenant) +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

采建有限公司

Claimant (respondent)

YAN KWOK CHO

First Defendant (appellant)

TAM PO OI

Second Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant had legal status to claim management fees under the deed or statute
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal rightly proceeded on a quasi-contractual/unjust enrichment basis
  3. 3 Whether defendants were unjustly enriched and enrichment was at claimant's expense

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the tribunal correctly found on the remitted facts that claimant provided management services, defendants were enriched by those services at claimant's expense, no valid change of position defence was established, and there was no legal error in proceeding on an unjust enrichment/quasi-contract basis or in the tribunal's handling of evidence; defendants failed to show an arguable appeal on law.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Application dated 20 March 2017 dismissed