WING KWAI INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAR MING MACHINE WORKS CO LTD

WING KWAI INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAR MING MACHINE WORKS CO LTD

The claim was dismissed because giving retrospective effect to the 2007 reappointment would be unfair and oppressive in light of the developer's long control and the respondent's expressed challenge, and independently the applicants failed to prove entitlement to the claimed management fees because budgets were unreliable and apportionment breached the Deed of Mutual Covenant.

Citation
WING KWAI INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAR MING MACHINE WORKS CO LTD
Parties
Applicant: First Applicant; Applicant: Second Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 2008
Case Number
LDBM93/2007
Procedural Posture
Building Management Dispute / Final Judgment (lands Tribunal)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Deed of Mutual Covenant, Retrospective Appointment, Management Fees, Budget and Apportionment, Oppression/unfairness
Source Language
EN
Property Law Building Management Law Contract Law Equity Deed of Mutual Covenant Retrospective Appointment Management Fees Budget and Apportionment +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Applicant

Applicant

Second Applicant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Dispute / Final Judgment (lands Tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a November 2007 resolution could validly re‑appoint the manager with retrospective effect
  2. 2 Whether applicants are entitled to management fees given the respondent's long‑standing objection and delay
  3. 3 Whether applicants complied with duty to prepare budgets and apply the correct apportionment formula under the Deed of Mutual Covenant

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because giving retrospective effect to the 2007 reappointment would be unfair and oppressive in light of the developer's long control and the respondent's expressed challenge, and independently the applicants failed to prove entitlement to the claimed management fees because budgets were unreliable and apportionment breached the Deed of Mutual Covenant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Order nisi for costs to the Respondent on High Court scale to be taxed if not agreed