TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Rule 3 of the House Rules (prohibiting the keeping of dogs in the estate including private units) was invalid because the manager exceeded the authority granted by the registered Stage VII DMC: the manager's power to make rules was limited to rules relating to common parts and access areas and could not validly prohibit conduct within owners' units; Rule 3 also conflicted with Clauses 1, 3(1) and 3(2) of the DMC guaranteeing exclusive use and access rights; non-registration of the House Rules did not by itself render them void because the registered DMC referred to House Rules and owners are bound by the DMC covenant to comply with house rules; however enforcement can proceed against dog...

Citation
TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Omi gP gmi;N; 1st Defendant: Mei Foo Investments Ltd (Management Company); 2nd Defendant: Incorporated Owners of Mei Foo
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 2008
Case Number
DCCJ1704/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Building Management / DMC and House Rules Dispute / District Court Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Declaration issued that Rule 3 of the House Rules is invalid; Plaintiff judgment on merits; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; damages awarded to Plaintiff; costs order nisi to Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Deed of Mutual Covenant, House Rules, Registration, Validity, Ultra Vires, Exclusive Possession, Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Damages
Source Language
EN
Property Conveyancing Land Registration Building Management Civil Procedure Nuisance Deed of Mutual Covenant House Rules +7 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 8 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omi gP gmi;N

Plaintiff

Mei Foo Investments Ltd (Management Company)

1st Defendant

Incorporated Owners of Mei Foo

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Building Management / DMC and House Rules Dispute / District Court Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the management company had power under the Stage VII DMC to make House Rules prohibiting dogs in private units
  2. 2 Whether House Rules must be registered under the Land Registration Ordinance to be binding
  3. 3 Legal status of House Rules relative to the DMC and effect of any inconsistency

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 3 of the House Rules (prohibiting the keeping of dogs in the estate including private units) was invalid because the manager exceeded the authority granted by the registered Stage VII DMC: the manager's power to make rules was limited to rules relating to common parts and access areas and could not validly prohibit conduct within owners' units; Rule 3 also conflicted with Clauses 1, 3(1) and 3(2) of the DMC guaranteeing exclusive use and access rights; non-registration of the House Rules did not by itself render them void because the registered DMC referred to House Rules and owners are bound by the DMC covenant to comply with house rules; however enforcement can proceed against dog...

Court Disposition

Declaration issued that Rule 3 of the House Rules is invalid; Plaintiff judgment on merits; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; damages awarded to Plaintiff; costs order nisi to Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Costs order nisi to Plaintiff with certificate for counsel, to be made absolute after 14 days from the date of judgment