KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD v. YUK YUN KIT AND OTHERS

KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD v. YUK YUN KIT AND OTHERS

On the evidence (complaint letters, inspections, photographs and videos and witness testimony) the Tribunal found repeated and substantial barking and foul odour emanating from House No. 26 that unreasonably interfered with neighbours' enjoyment of their properties; those facts satisfied Clause 5.19 and justified an order that all dogs and cats be removed from House No. 26 within three months and an award of costs to the Applicant.

Citation
KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD v. YUK YUN KIT AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant (estate Manager): Kai Shing Management Services Limited; 1st Respondent (owner): Yuk Yun Kit; 2nd Respondent (owner): Yuk Wai Kuen; 3rd Respondent (owner): Li Pui Seung
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 July 2016
Case Number
LDBM240/2014
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application (lands Tribunal) / Judgment (decision After Trial)
Outcome
Application allowed in part: animals found to cause nuisance; order made for removal and costs awarded to Applicant
Legal Topics
Private Nuisance, Deed of Mutual Covenant Enforcement (clause 5.19), Injunctive Relief, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Building Management Neighbourhood Disputes Civil Remedies Private Nuisance Deed of Mutual Covenant Enforcement (clause 5.19) Injunctive Relief Costs

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kai Shing Management Services Limited

Applicant (estate Manager)

Yuk Yun Kit

1st Respondent (owner)

Yuk Wai Kuen

2nd Respondent (owner)

Li Pui Seung

3rd Respondent (owner)

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application (lands Tribunal) / Judgment (decision After Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaints against animals kept in House No. 26 amounted to reasonable complaints/nuisance under Clause 5.19 of the Sub-Deed
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant as manager properly formed the opinion that the animals were causing nuisance and could invoke Clause 5.19
  3. 3 Whether injunctive relief (order to remove animals) and costs should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence (complaint letters, inspections, photographs and videos and witness testimony) the Tribunal found repeated and substantial barking and foul odour emanating from House No. 26 that unreasonably interfered with neighbours' enjoyment of their properties; those facts satisfied Clause 5.19 and justified an order that all dogs and cats be removed from House No. 26 within three months and an award of costs to the Applicant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: animals found to cause nuisance; order made for removal and costs awarded to Applicant

Orders

  • Respondents to remove all dogs and cats from House No. 26 within 3 months from date of judgment
  • Respondents to pay the Applicant's costs of the application, with counsel certificate, to be taxed if not agreed at District Court Scale