THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE REGALIA v. CHOK KIN MING AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE REGALIA v. CHOK KIN MING AND ANOTHER

The notice convening the AGM was sufficient because the resolutions on contribution quantum were ancillary to the primary resolution to establish the special fund; although the proposed 2016 budget did not follow the DMC's prescribed format, that breach did not trigger the BMO Schedule 7 consequence of reverting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1020
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Incorporated Owners of the Regalia; 1st Defendant/1st Appellant: Chok Kin Ming; 2nd Defendant/2nd Appellant: Chick Shui Har; 1st Defendant/1st Appellant: Siu Yiu Man; 2nd Defendant/2nd Appellant: Fan Oi Ling; 1st Defendant/1st Appellant: Wong Tak Yun; 2nd Defendant/2nd Appellant: Lo Ying Tsung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 April 2022
Case Number
HCSA14/2018
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Building Management, Management Fees, Special Fund, AGM Notice Requirements, Budget Consultation, Admission of New Evidence
Source Language
en
Property Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Building Management Management Fees Special Fund AGM Notice Requirements +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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Incorporated Owners of the Regalia

Claimant/respondent

Chok Kin Ming

1st Defendant/1st Appellant

Chick Shui Har

2nd Defendant/2nd Appellant

Siu Yiu Man

1st Defendant/1st Appellant

Fan Oi Ling

2nd Defendant/2nd Appellant

Wong Tak Yun

1st Defendant/1st Appellant

Lo Ying Tsung

2nd Defendant/2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was establishment of the 2015 Special Fund valid
  2. 2 Was the 2015 AGM notice sufficient to permit resolutions as passed
  3. 3 Did the 2016 budget comply with DMC clause 13 and BMO Schedule 7 and if not what are the consequences

Ratio Decidendi

The notice convening the AGM was sufficient because the resolutions on contribution quantum were ancillary to the primary resolution to establish the special fund; although the proposed 2016 budget did not follow the DMC's prescribed format, that breach did not trigger the BMO Schedule 7 consequence of reverting fees to prior year and did not invalidate the budget as the budget was consulted, discussed at the AGM and adjusted accordingly; consultation requirement was met when the committee considered the draft and delegated to a taskforce; admission of fresh evidence was refused and abandoned grounds could not be reopened; cumulatively these conclusions meant the Adjudicator’s liability...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the appeal to the respondent to be taxed if not agreed