YEUNG CHUNG LAU v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CENTURY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND OTHERS

YEUNG CHUNG LAU v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CENTURY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal refused because none of the proposed grounds had a realistic prospect of success: clause 15 of the DMC was clear and correctly interpreted; the 6/5/2006 resolutions did not concern building management so s.34J(2) was irrelevant; correspondence did not establish any agreement to be bound by the owners' meeting (estoppel failed); Judge Yung's order did not determine the injunction issue; and there was no matter of general or public interest warranting appellate review.

Citation
YEUNG CHUNG LAU v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CENTURY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; First Defendant: 1st Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2006
Case Number
DCCJ381/2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Injunction Order / Leave to Appeal Application Under Order 58 Rule 2 (interlocutory Stage)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Deed of Mutual Covenant (dmc) Interpretation, Building Management Ordinance S.34 J(2), Estoppel, Res Judicata, Leave to Appeal Test
Source Language
EN
Civil Appeals Property/building Management Equity Interlocutory Injunction Deed of Mutual Covenant (dmc) Interpretation Building Management Ordinance S.34 J(2) Estoppel +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Injunction Order / Leave to Appeal Application Under Order 58 Rule 2 (interlocutory Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a realistic prospect of success on appeal against the interim order
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of clause 15 of the Deed of Mutual Covenant
  3. 3 Whether s.34J(2) BMO renders clause 15 void or inapplicable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because none of the proposed grounds had a realistic prospect of success: clause 15 of the DMC was clear and correctly interpreted; the 6/5/2006 resolutions did not concern building management so s.34J(2) was irrelevant; correspondence did not establish any agreement to be bound by the owners' meeting (estoppel failed); Judge Yung's order did not determine the injunction issue; and there was no matter of general or public interest warranting appellate review.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused
  • Costs of this application to the plaintiff, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed