DYNAMIC OCEAN LTD v. SAVILLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

DYNAMIC OCEAN LTD v. SAVILLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

The Plate constituted part of the common area under DMC1 only; the Applicant was not a party to DMC2 and could not rely on section 18 BMO against IO2, so claims against IO2 failed; the Applicant company did not itself suffer the personal nuisance complained of by its director and could not recover general damages on her behalf; however the 1st Respondent and IO1 breached their DMC1 obligations and would have been subject to injunctive relief had the Plate remained in situ, entitling the Applicant to costs but only half as damages claim failed.

Citation
DYNAMIC OCEAN LTD v. SAVILLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: DYNAMIC OCEAN LIMITED; 1st Respondent: SAVILLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED formerly known as FPDSAVILLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF VENICE COURT, ROME COURT AND VIENNA COURT and THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LONDON COURT AND PARIS COURT
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 October 2006
Case Number
LDBM37/2006
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application No. 37 of 2006 / Judgment Handed Down 23 October 2006
Outcome
Applicant's claims against IO2 dismissed; Applicant's claim for damages dismissed; 1st Respondent and IO1 found to have breached DMC1 obligations and would have been injuncted had the Plate remained; costs awarded on a split basis.
Legal Topics
Deed of Mutual Covenant, Breach of Covenant, Nuisance, Damages, Costs, Jurisdiction, Injunction
Source Language
EN
Building Management Property Law Contract Law Tort (nuisance) Civil Procedure Deed of Mutual Covenant Breach of Covenant Nuisance +4 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DYNAMIC OCEAN LIMITED

Applicant

SAVILLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED formerly known as FPDSAVILLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED

1st Respondent

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF VENICE COURT, ROME COURT AND VIENNA COURT and THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LONDON COURT AND PARIS COURT

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application No. 37 of 2006 / Judgment Handed Down 23 October 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plate formed part of the common area under DMC2 and whether IO2 was liable
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant company could recover general damages for nuisance suffered by a director/occupier (Miss Kwan)
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Respondent and IO1 breached obligations under DMC1 to repair and manage common parts

Ratio Decidendi

The Plate constituted part of the common area under DMC1 only; the Applicant was not a party to DMC2 and could not rely on section 18 BMO against IO2, so claims against IO2 failed; the Applicant company did not itself suffer the personal nuisance complained of by its director and could not recover general damages on her behalf; however the 1st Respondent and IO1 breached their DMC1 obligations and would have been subject to injunctive relief had the Plate remained in situ, entitling the Applicant to costs but only half as damages claim failed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claims against IO2 dismissed; Applicant's claim for damages dismissed; 1st Respondent and IO1 found to have breached DMC1 obligations and would have been injuncted had the Plate remained; costs awarded on a split basis.

Orders

  • The Applicant's claims against IO2 be dismissed
  • The Applicant's claim for damages be dismissed