黎寶榮及另一人 對 馬鞍山錦豐苑業主立案法團及另一人

黎寶榮及另一人 對 馬鞍山錦豐苑業主立案法團及另一人

On issue one the application was dismissed because Applicants produced no evidence to rebut the manager/contractor's technical position and the refusal to allow entry was not a sufficient ground to compel intervention; on issue two the court accepted the expert evidence that Fig 90 shows an external wall defect caused by 2016 works at 1406 which was a source of bathroom seepage, and held that R2 must repair Fig 90 and that both R1 and R2 must pay the agreed repair cost of HK$11,000 because R1 failed properly to investigate and notify under the DMC and statutory duties, making both liable for the repair cost allocation ordered.

Citation
[2024] HKLdT 16
Parties
First Applicant: 黎寶榮; Second Applicant: 鍾春梅; First Respondent: 馬鞍山錦豐苑業主立案法團; Second Respondent: 葉荏昌
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 2024
Case Number
LDBM183/2022
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application (建築物管理申請) / Decision (judgment)
Outcome
Applicant's relief in respect of kitchen ceiling (issue one) dismissed; Applicant granted relief in part for bathroom ceiling (issue two) as to liability and repair order.
Legal Topics
Repair Obligations Under Deed of Mutual Covenants, Liability for Water Ingress, Access for Repair Works, Expert Evidence, Costs Orders
Source Language
CH
Building Management Property Tort (water Ingress) Civil Procedure Repair Obligations Under Deed of Mutual Covenants Liability for Water Ingress Access for Repair Works Expert Evidence +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

黎寶榮

First Applicant

鍾春梅

Second Applicant

馬鞍山錦豐苑業主立案法團

First Respondent

葉荏昌

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application (建築物管理申請) / Decision (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Applicant reasonably refused access to unit for external wall repair (kitchen ceiling issue)
  2. 2 Whether bathroom ceiling seepage source was the external wall damage shown in Fig 90 and who bears repair liability
  3. 3 Whether First Respondent fulfilled its management duties to investigate and notify under the Deed of Mutual Covenants and Building Management Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

On issue one the application was dismissed because Applicants produced no evidence to rebut the manager/contractor's technical position and the refusal to allow entry was not a sufficient ground to compel intervention; on issue two the court accepted the expert evidence that Fig 90 shows an external wall defect caused by 2016 works at 1406 which was a source of bathroom seepage, and held that R2 must repair Fig 90 and that both R1 and R2 must pay the agreed repair cost of HK$11,000 because R1 failed properly to investigate and notify under the DMC and statutory duties, making both liable for the repair cost allocation ordered.

Court Disposition

Applicant's relief in respect of kitchen ceiling (issue one) dismissed; Applicant granted relief in part for bathroom ceiling (issue two) as to liability and repair order.

Orders

  • First and Second Respondents to pay the Applicant HK$11,000
  • Second Respondent to repair the damage shown in Fig 90 within two months of the order