SIN CHAN KAM 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

SIN CHAN KAM 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

The Court held that the Land Tribunal has power to punish contempt under s10(1A) and that appeals concerning contempt are governed by HCO s50(1); notwithstanding that s50(1) may render leave unnecessary, the Court granted leave because the respondent demonstrated arguable errors of law: the trial judge either failed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCA 637
Parties
Applicant: SIN CHAN KAM; Respondent: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 2025
Case Number
CAMP24/2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Contempt Findings / Permission to Appeal Granted; Respondent Ordered to File Notice of Appeal Within 14 Days
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Contempt, Mandatory Injunction, Enforcement of Tribunal Orders, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Reasoning, Costs
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Land Tribunal Jurisdiction Property Law Appeal Contempt Mandatory Injunction Enforcement of Tribunal Orders +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SIN CHAN KAM

Applicant

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Contempt Findings / Permission to Appeal Granted; Respondent Ordered to File Notice of Appeal Within 14 Days

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal is required for orders or decisions punishing contempt by the Land Tribunal under High Court Ordinance s50(1) and related provisions
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in law by failing to consider the respondent's ability to comply with the mandatory injunction
  3. 3 Whether, if the judge found the respondent had the ability to comply, the judge failed to state reasons clearly and transparently

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Land Tribunal has power to punish contempt under s10(1A) and that appeals concerning contempt are governed by HCO s50(1); notwithstanding that s50(1) may render leave unnecessary, the Court granted leave because the respondent demonstrated arguable errors of law: the trial judge either failed to consider the respondent's ability to comply with the mandatory injunction or failed to state clearly that finding, thereby giving the appeal a real prospect of success; costs reserved to the appeal hearing.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Granted leave to appeal
  • Ordered respondent to serve and file the notice of appeal within 14 days (time to be extended if required)