THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PEARL GARDENS HONG KONG AND OTHERS v. GILES WONG

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PEARL GARDENS HONG KONG AND OTHERS v. GILES WONG

Because complaints against the respondents ceased by around February 2015 the need for injunctive relief by the Incorporated Owners had disappeared and the dispute became academic as between the IO and the respondents; applying the Tribunal's discretion under Rule 27 and the burden on the applicant to justify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PEARL GARDENS HONG KONG AND OTHERS v. GILES WONG
Parties
1st Applicant (discontinued): THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PEARL GARDENS HONG KONG; 2nd Applicant: YOLANDA VERONICA FRANKLIN; 3rd Applicants: SIMON CHRISTOPHER DONOWHO and PENELOPE JANE DONOWHO; 4th Applicants: NG MAN FUNG WALTER and NG TSANG WA DAN ADELA; 5th Applicant: TOP BRAVE LIMITED; Respondents: GILES WONG and SHIRLEY MAE LEIMOMI WONG
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 November 2015
Case Number
LDBM136/2014
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application / Decision on Costs Following Discontinuance (costs Application)
Outcome
Costs decision: no order as to costs between the 1st applicant (IO) and the respondents; costs order nisi for this costs application against the 1st applicant
Legal Topics
Discontinuance, Costs on Discontinuance, Interlocutory Injunction, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Noise Nuisance
Source Language
en
Land Law Building Management Civil Procedure Private Nuisance Discontinuance Costs on Discontinuance Interlocutory Injunction Deed of Mutual Covenant +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PEARL GARDENS HONG KONG

1st Applicant (discontinued)

YOLANDA VERONICA FRANKLIN

2nd Applicant

SIMON CHRISTOPHER DONOWHO and PENELOPE JANE DONOWHO

3rd Applicants

NG MAN FUNG WALTER and NG TSANG WA DAN ADELA

4th Applicants

TOP BRAVE LIMITED

5th Applicant

GILES WONG and SHIRLEY MAE LEIMOMI WONG

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application / Decision on Costs Following Discontinuance (costs Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should order costs against the 1st applicant upon discontinuance
  2. 2 Whether the Incorporated Owners (IO) was a necessary party to the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the discontinuance was due to the matter becoming academic allowing departure from the general rule

Ratio Decidendi

Because complaints against the respondents ceased by around February 2015 the need for injunctive relief by the Incorporated Owners had disappeared and the dispute became academic as between the IO and the respondents; applying the Tribunal's discretion under Rule 27 and the burden on the applicant to justify departure from the general rule, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs between the IO and the respondents while making a costs order nisi in respect of the costs application.

Court Disposition

Costs decision: no order as to costs between the 1st applicant (IO) and the respondents; costs order nisi for this costs application against the 1st applicant

Orders

  • There shall be no order as to costs in these proceedings (including the interlocutory application filed on 25 July 2014) as between the 1st applicant and the respondents.
  • Costs order nisi that costs of this costs application be to the 1st applicant, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed on District Court scale; the costs order nisi shall be made absolute upon expiry of 14 days unless varied by summons.