LI SANG EDWARD v. TANG WING MING JIM AND ANOTHER

LI SANG EDWARD v. TANG WING MING JIM AND ANOTHER

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the OR and the ERR are invalid because they effectuate a negative voting mechanism and permit resolutions to be passed by email in a manner that contradicts Schedule 2 of the Building Management Ordinance which requires meetings, specified notice containing proposed resolutions, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LI SANG EDWARD v. TANG WING MING JIM AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Li Sang Edward; 1st Respondent: Tang Wing Ming Jim; 2nd Respondent: The Incorporated Owners of Sun Yuen Long Centre
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 February 2009
Case Number
LDBM144/2008
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the OR and the ERR are invalid; application against Tang dismissed
Legal Topics
Validity of Management Committee Regulations, Email Decision Making, Negative Voting, Declaratory Relief, Personal Liability of Committee Members
Source Language
en
Building Management Property Law Administrative Law Validity of Management Committee Regulations Email Decision Making Negative Voting Declaratory Relief Personal Liability of Committee Members

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Sang Edward

Applicant

Tang Wing Ming Jim

1st Respondent

The Incorporated Owners of Sun Yuen Long Centre

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the OR are invalid
  2. 2 Whether the Email Resolution Regulations (ERR) in their entirety are invalid
  3. 3 Whether Tang is personally liable for passing the resolutions

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the OR and the ERR are invalid because they effectuate a negative voting mechanism and permit resolutions to be passed by email in a manner that contradicts Schedule 2 of the Building Management Ordinance which requires meetings, specified notice containing proposed resolutions, and decision-making by a majority of members present; paragraph 3 is not objectionable as it does not create legal consequences of theft. Tang is not personally liable because he acted in good faith and within protections of section 29A and there was no pleaded cause of action against him.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the OR and the ERR are invalid; application against Tang dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the OR and the ERR passed on 19 May 2008 are invalid for being contrary to Schedule 2 of the Building Management Ordinance
  • Application against Tang dismissed