聯基新樓業主立案法團 v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD

聯基新樓業主立案法團 v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD

Leave to appeal was granted because the defendant raised arguable points of law regarding the construction of the deed of mutual covenant and the effect of section 34H of the Buildings Management Ordinance on apportionment of repair and maintenance costs; those issues are legally significant and require full...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
聯基新樓業主立案法團 v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD
Parties
Claimant (respondent): 聯基新樓業主立案法團; Defendant (appellant): YAN YAN MOTORS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 April 2015
Case Number
HCSA8/2015
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeals to High Court (leave to Appeal Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance S28) / Application for Leave to Appeal on Point of Law (leave Granted)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Deed of Mutual Covenant, Apportionment of Repair Costs, Jurisdiction of Small Claims Tribunal, Burden of Proof, Buildings Management Ordinance S34 H
Source Language
en
Property Law Building Management Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Deed of Mutual Covenant Apportionment of Repair Costs Jurisdiction of Small Claims Tribunal Burden of Proof +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

聯基新樓業主立案法團

Claimant (respondent)

YAN YAN MOTORS LIMITED

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeals to High Court (leave to Appeal Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance S28) / Application for Leave to Appeal on Point of Law (leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of clause 3 of the deed of mutual covenant regarding exclusive use of external walls and main roof
  2. 2 Whether the defendant bears part of the costs of repairs and maintenance of external walls and main roof
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Adjudicator wrongly placed burden on defendant to prove developer's use/occupation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the defendant raised arguable points of law regarding the construction of the deed of mutual covenant and the effect of section 34H of the Buildings Management Ordinance on apportionment of repair and maintenance costs; those issues are legally significant and require full appellate consideration. Leave includes permission to argue non‑liability for costs of the main roof as well as external walls. Costs of the leave application were ordered in the cause.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted to the defendant on points of law relating to apportionment of repair and maintenance costs
  • Defendant permitted to amend the applications for leave to appeal to include the main roof as well as external walls