HARVEST TOP DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HARBOUR VIEW GARDEN AND ANOTHER

HARVEST TOP DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HARBOUR VIEW GARDEN AND ANOTHER

The Tribunal found no manifest error in the 2008 Management Budget and accepted the manager's 'actual use' apportionment as reasonable; Schedule 7(1)(3) BMO applies so where no draft budget was prepared for 2002–2006 the prior year's amount could be levied and no overpayment arose; the smart card security measure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HARVEST TOP DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HARBOUR VIEW GARDEN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: HARVEST TOP DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 1st Respondent: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HARBOUR VIEW GARDEN; 2nd Respondent: KONG SHUM UNION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 January 2011
Case Number
LDBM145/2008
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application (lands Tribunal) / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Management Fee Apportionment, Validity of Management Budget, Inspection of Accounts, Security Measures (smart Card), Estoppel, Recovery of Alleged Overpayment, Case Management
Source Language
en
Building Management Property Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Management Fee Apportionment Validity of Management Budget Inspection of Accounts Security Measures (smart Card) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HARVEST TOP DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Applicant

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HARBOUR VIEW GARDEN

1st Respondent

KONG SHUM UNION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application (lands Tribunal) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2008 Management Budget contained manifest error
  2. 2 Whether the budget resulted in the Applicant unfairly or inequitably paying higher contributions
  3. 3 Whether the Manager abused or failed to exercise its discretion under the DMC (Section VI(D))

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found no manifest error in the 2008 Management Budget and accepted the manager's 'actual use' apportionment as reasonable; Schedule 7(1)(3) BMO applies so where no draft budget was prepared for 2002–2006 the prior year's amount could be levied and no overpayment arose; the smart card security measure did not create a new route nor breach the DMC; prayer (a) sought relief beyond Schedule 6; accordingly the Applicant's claims failed and the application was dismissed with costs ordered in favour of the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs nisi to be paid by the Applicant to the 1st and 2nd Respondents; costs to be taxed if not agreed