采建有限公司 對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人

采建有限公司 對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人

The tribunal’s findings that the claimant provided management services during the relevant period, that the defendants accepted and benefited from those services without payment, and that the defendants failed to establish a change of position or to disprove the claimant’s accounts justified recovery on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract grounds; the rehearing did not misapply the law nor contravene the earlier High Court directions, so leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
采建有限公司 對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人
Parties
Claimant (respondent): 采建有限公司; First Defendant (appellant): YAN KWOK CHO; Second Defendant (appellant): TAM PO OI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 June 2017
Case Number
HCSA15/2017
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Application for Permission to Appeal (leave to Appeal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Management Fees Recovery, Appointment of Building Manager Under Deed of Mutual Covenant, Quasi Contract (restitution), Change of Position Defence, Small Claims Tribunal Procedure, Building Management Ordinance Schedule 7
Source Language
CH
Building Management Contract Unjust Enrichment Civil Procedure Management Fees Recovery Appointment of Building Manager Under Deed of Mutual Covenant Quasi Contract (restitution) Change of Position Defence +2 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

采建有限公司

Claimant (respondent)

YAN KWOK CHO

First Defendant (appellant)

TAM PO OI

Second Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Application for Permission to Appeal (leave to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had legal status under the deed of mutual covenant or under statutory provisions to recover management fees
  2. 2 Whether the claimant could recover management fees on the basis of unjust enrichment/quasi-contract despite not being the deed-appointed manager
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were enriched at the claimant’s expense and whether that enrichment was unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal’s findings that the claimant provided management services during the relevant period, that the defendants accepted and benefited from those services without payment, and that the defendants failed to establish a change of position or to disprove the claimant’s accounts justified recovery on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract grounds; the rehearing did not misapply the law nor contravene the earlier High Court directions, so leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Defendants' 20 March 2017 application revoked/dismissed