CHOW CHUI CHUI AND OTHERS v. KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

CHOW CHUI CHUI AND OTHERS v. KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

The application to vary the costs order nisi was refused because the issues in the underlying trial involved novel and primarily legal questions (interpretation of DMC/Sub‑DMCs and the BMO) such that briefing counsel was not unreasonable; accordingly the variation was denied, and costs of the variation application were ordered to the Former MC Members to be taxed at District Court Scale without a counsel certificate.

Citation
CHOW CHUI CHUI AND OTHERS v. KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Applicant (ldbm 299/2012): CHOW CHUI CHUI; 2nd Applicant (ldbm 299/2012): LAM KAM CHUNG; 3rd Applicant (ldbm 299/2012): CHU CHIT YAN; 4th Applicant (ldbm 299/2012): LEUNG CHUNG CHIU; 5th Applicant (ldbm 299/2012): CHAN HING CHUN; 6th Applicant (ldbm 299/2012): HO WAN FUN; 7th Applicant (ldbm 299/2012): THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING; 1st Respondent (ldbm 299/2012): KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Respondent (ldbm 299/2012): CHAN SING HO; 3rd Respondent (ldbm 299/2012): FIRM HOME PROPERTIES LIMITED; 4th Respondent (ldbm 299/2012) (discontinued): AU NGO SUET; 5th Respondent (ldbm 299/2012): CHAINWILL INVESTMENT LIMITED; 6th Respondent (ldbm 299/2012): POLITFORD INVESTMENTS LIMITED; Applicant (ldbm 108/2013): THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING; 1st Respondent (ldbm 108/2013): CHOW CHUI CHUI; 2nd Respondent (ldbm 108/2013): LAM KAM CHUNG; 3rd Respondent (ldbm 108/2013): CHU CHIT YAN; 4th Respondent (ldbm 108/2013): LEUNG CHUNG CHIU; 5th Respondent (ldbm 108/2013): LAU CHOR SANR; 6th Respondent (ldbm 108/2013): CHAN HING CHUN; 7th Respondent (ldbm 108/2013): HO WAN FUN
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 October 2014
Case Number
LDBM299/2012
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (interlocutory/costs Variation)
Outcome
Application for variation of costs order nisi refused
Legal Topics
Counsel Certificate, Costs Order Nisi, Interpretation of Deed of Mutual Covenant and Sub‑dmcs, Application of Building Management Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Building Management Costs Tribunal Procedure Statutory Interpretation Counsel Certificate Costs Order Nisi Interpretation of Deed of Mutual Covenant and Sub‑dmcs Application of Building Management Ordinance

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

Parties

CHOW CHUI CHUI

1st Applicant (ldbm 299/2012)

LAM KAM CHUNG

2nd Applicant (ldbm 299/2012)

CHU CHIT YAN

3rd Applicant (ldbm 299/2012)

LEUNG CHUNG CHIU

4th Applicant (ldbm 299/2012)

CHAN HING CHUN

5th Applicant (ldbm 299/2012)

HO WAN FUN

6th Applicant (ldbm 299/2012)

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING

7th Applicant (ldbm 299/2012)

KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Respondent (ldbm 299/2012)

CHAN SING HO

2nd Respondent (ldbm 299/2012)

FIRM HOME PROPERTIES LIMITED

3rd Respondent (ldbm 299/2012)

AU NGO SUET

4th Respondent (ldbm 299/2012) (discontinued)

CHAINWILL INVESTMENT LIMITED

5th Respondent (ldbm 299/2012)

POLITFORD INVESTMENTS LIMITED

6th Respondent (ldbm 299/2012)

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING

Applicant (ldbm 108/2013)

CHOW CHUI CHUI

1st Respondent (ldbm 108/2013)

LAM KAM CHUNG

2nd Respondent (ldbm 108/2013)

CHU CHIT YAN

3rd Respondent (ldbm 108/2013)

LEUNG CHUNG CHIU

4th Respondent (ldbm 108/2013)

LAU CHOR SANR

5th Respondent (ldbm 108/2013)

CHAN HING CHUN

6th Respondent (ldbm 108/2013)

HO WAN FUN

7th Respondent (ldbm 108/2013)

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (interlocutory/costs Variation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a counsel certificate should be granted
  2. 2 Whether variation of the costs order nisi should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the issues were sufficiently complex or novel to justify counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the costs order nisi was refused because the issues in the underlying trial involved novel and primarily legal questions (interpretation of DMC/Sub‑DMCs and the BMO) such that briefing counsel was not unreasonable; accordingly the variation was denied, and costs of the variation application were ordered to the Former MC Members to be taxed at District Court Scale without a counsel certificate.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of costs order nisi refused

Orders

  • Application for variation of the costs order nisi refused
  • Costs of this application to be paid to the Former MC Members, to be taxed at District Court Scale with no counsel certificate