羅小玲及另二人 對 鄭慧玲及另一人

羅小玲及另二人 對 鄭慧玲及另一人

The 702 notice and the 716 meeting were not a lawful response to the 501 requisition because (a) the notice's agenda materially differed from the matters specified in the requisition, (b) the chairman had not obtained management committee authorization to convene the meeting under Sch 3(1)(1) nor did the facts...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKLdT 34
Parties
First Applicant: 羅小玲; Second Applicant: 黃國強; Third Applicant: 朱董國芳; First Respondent: 鄭慧玲; Second Respondent: 嘉榮大廈（加連威老道）業主立案法團
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Case Number
LDBM26/2020
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application Under the Building Management Ordinance / Hearing and Judgment (tribunal Decision)
Outcome
Applicants' primary relief granted: declarations issued that the 2 July 2020 notice was invalid, the 16 July 2020 owners' meeting was invalid and all resolutions passed at that meeting were invalid; costs ordered partially against respondents.
Legal Topics
Validity of Meeting Notice, Owners' Requisition Under BMO Sch 3(1)(2), Authority of Chairman Vs Management Committee, Remedy by Declaration, Meeting Procedure and Voting
Source Language
ch
Building Management Property Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Validity of Meeting Notice Owners' Requisition Under BMO Sch 3(1)(2) Authority of Chairman Vs Management Committee Remedy by Declaration +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

羅小玲

First Applicant

黃國強

Second Applicant

朱董國芳

Third Applicant

鄭慧玲

First Respondent

嘉榮大廈（加連威老道）業主立案法團

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application Under the Building Management Ordinance / Hearing and Judgment (tribunal Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2 July 2020 notice (702 notice) and the 16 July 2020 owners' meeting (716 meeting) were valid under the Building Management Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the chairman had authority to convene the 716 meeting without management committee authorization
  3. 3 Whether the 716 meeting's agenda complied with the 5% owners' requisition (501 requisition)

Ratio Decidendi

The 702 notice and the 716 meeting were not a lawful response to the 501 requisition because (a) the notice's agenda materially differed from the matters specified in the requisition, (b) the chairman had not obtained management committee authorization to convene the meeting under Sch 3(1)(1) nor did the facts justify reliance on Sch 2(6A)(1), and (c) a chairman lacks unilateral authority to substitute or alter requisitioned items; accordingly the notice, meeting and all resolutions are invalid and the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to declare them so.

Court Disposition

Applicants' primary relief granted: declarations issued that the 2 July 2020 notice was invalid, the 16 July 2020 owners' meeting was invalid and all resolutions passed at that meeting were invalid; costs ordered partially against respondents.

Orders

  • Declaration that the notice dated 2 July 2020 signed by the First Respondent purporting to convene an owners' meeting was not a notice convened under the Building Management Ordinance and is invalid
  • Declaration that the owners' meeting held on 16 July 2020 is invalid