LEE DIN CHUN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BEVERLY HEIGHTS AND ANOTHER

LEE DIN CHUN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BEVERLY HEIGHTS AND ANOTHER

The IO is not liable to pay for rebuilding an unauthorized structure; the applicant failed to prove the old canopy was authorized, the new canopy contravened section 14(1) of the Buildings Ordinance and relevant DMC clauses, and removal of the old canopy was within the IO's powers to facilitate necessary communal works, therefore the claim for $7,800 is dismissed.

Citation
LEE DIN CHUN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BEVERLY HEIGHTS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Lee Din Chun; 1st Respondent: Incorporated Owners of Beverly Heights; 2nd Respondent: Kong Shum Union Property Management Co. Ltd.
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Case Number
LDBM235/2009
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Unauthorized Structures, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Building Ordinance Compliance, Compensation for Removal of Structure, Owners Incorporation Powers, Costs
Source Language
EN
Building Law Property Law Land Law Unauthorized Structures Deed of Mutual Covenant Building Ordinance Compliance Compensation for Removal of Structure Owners Incorporation Powers +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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Din Chun

Applicant

Incorporated Owners of Beverly Heights

1st Respondent

Kong Shum Union Property Management Co. Ltd.

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the IO is liable to pay compensation for demolition and rebuilding of a canopy on a parking space
  2. 2 Whether the old and new canopies were unauthorized structures contravening the Building Ordinance and the DMC
  3. 3 Whether the IO had authority under the DMC and relevant statute to remove the old canopy to carry out necessary works

Ratio Decidendi

The IO is not liable to pay for rebuilding an unauthorized structure; the applicant failed to prove the old canopy was authorized, the new canopy contravened section 14(1) of the Buildings Ordinance and relevant DMC clauses, and removal of the old canopy was within the IO's powers to facilitate necessary communal works, therefore the claim for $7,800 is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Costs order nisi that the Applicant pay the Respondents' costs with a certificate for counsel