BRISTLE LTD v. WONG TSUI CHING VENISA AND ANOTHER

BRISTLE LTD v. WONG TSUI CHING VENISA AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff had no right to use the common parts as access, reliance on Part VIA was misconceived as s 34I could only be exercised by an owners' committee which did not exist, s 34C did not assist absent s 34I, and the breach was unlawful and not subject to approval, waiver or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BRISTLE LTD v. WONG TSUI CHING VENISA AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: BRISTLE LIMITED; 1st Defendant: WONG TSUI CHING VENISA; 2nd Defendant: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE BAROQUE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Case Number
HCA854/2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction / Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Deed of Mutual Covenant, Building Management Ordinance Part VIA, Owners' Committee, Waiver and Acquiescence, Estoppel, Access Rights to Common Parts
Source Language
en
Property Law Building Management Civil Procedure Injunctions Deed of Mutual Covenant Building Management Ordinance Part VIA Owners' Committee Waiver and Acquiescence +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BRISTLE LIMITED

Plaintiff

WONG TSUI CHING VENISA

1st Defendant

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE BAROQUE

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction / Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has a right to use common parts as an access to its house
  3. 3 Whether Part VIA of the Building Management Ordinance (ss 34C and 34I) assists the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff had no right to use the common parts as access, reliance on Part VIA was misconceived as s 34I could only be exercised by an owners' committee which did not exist, s 34C did not assist absent s 34I, and the breach was unlawful and not subject to approval, waiver or acquiescence such that there was no serious question to be tried.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused