BUILDING AUTHORITY v. MR. HARDING RUSSELL JOHN CHALLONER AND ANOTHER

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. MR. HARDING RUSSELL JOHN CHALLONER AND ANOTHER

Although the application for a closure order was proper when made because the unauthorized structures remained in existence and the statutory notice requirements were met, no closure order was issued because the unauthorized structures were removed before judgment; nevertheless the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs for causing the proceedings by failing to comply with the prior demolition order.

Citation
BUILDING AUTHORITY v. MR. HARDING RUSSELL JOHN CHALLONER AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Building Authority; 1st Respondent: Mr. Harding Russell John Challoner; 2nd Respondent: Madam Fung Sui Ping
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 May 2011
Case Number
DCMP2662/2010
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (closure Order Application Under Buildings Ordinance) / Judgment (costs Hearing)
Outcome
No closure order issued; Respondents ordered to pay the Applicant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for Counsel.
Legal Topics
Closure Order, Demolition Order, Service of Notice Under S27, Appeal Against Demolition Order, Exempted Works
Source Language
EN
Building Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs Closure Order Demolition Order Service of Notice Under S27 Appeal Against Demolition Order +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Building Authority

Applicant

Mr. Harding Russell John Challoner

1st Respondent

Madam Fung Sui Ping

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (closure Order Application Under Buildings Ordinance) / Judgment (costs Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a closure order should be made when the alleged unauthorized structures were demolished after the application but before judgment
  2. 2 Whether the District Court is obliged to make a closure order once the requirements of section 27(1) and (2) are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether grounds attacking a demolition order can be used to oppose an application for a closure order

Ratio Decidendi

Although the application for a closure order was proper when made because the unauthorized structures remained in existence and the statutory notice requirements were met, no closure order was issued because the unauthorized structures were removed before judgment; nevertheless the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs for causing the proceedings by failing to comply with the prior demolition order.

Court Disposition

No closure order issued; Respondents ordered to pay the Applicant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for Counsel.

Orders

  • No closure order issued.
  • Respondents to pay costs of these proceedings to the Applicant, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for Counsel.