SPEEDY GAINER LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENTS AND ANOTHER

SPEEDY GAINER LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENTS AND ANOTHER

The application is dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate a proper demand for inspection: prior requests were made in the name of Cogi without disclosure that Cogi acted as agent for the Applicant, and the Notice of Application could not be treated as an independent demand after the parties agreed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SPEEDY GAINER LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENTS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: SPEEDY GAINER LIMITED; 1st Respondent: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENTS; 2nd Respondent: KONG SHUM UNION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 November 2004
Case Number
LDBM248/2004
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application No. 248 of 2004 (lands Tribunal) / Judgment (5 November 2004)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Inspection of Management Accounts, Deed of Mutual Covenant (dmc) Obligations, Undisclosed Principal Doctrine, Definition and Duties of Manager Under Building Management Ordinance, Costs
Source Language
en
Property Law Building Management Agency Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Inspection of Management Accounts Deed of Mutual Covenant (dmc) Obligations Undisclosed Principal Doctrine +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SPEEDY GAINER LIMITED

Applicant

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENTS

1st Respondent

KONG SHUM UNION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application No. 248 of 2004 (lands Tribunal) / Judgment (5 November 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant had made a valid demand for inspection of the management accounts
  2. 2 Whether Cogi acted as agent for the Applicant or as an undisclosed principal such that demand made in Cogi's name bound the Respondents
  3. 3 Whether the Incorporated Owners (1st Respondent) are obliged under s.18(1)(c) and the DMC/7th Schedule to facilitate inspection

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate a proper demand for inspection: prior requests were made in the name of Cogi without disclosure that Cogi acted as agent for the Applicant, and the Notice of Application could not be treated as an independent demand after the parties agreed to a without‑prejudice inspection; additionally, on the substantive point the Tribunal found the 2nd Respondent to be the manager within s.34D and subject to the 7th Schedule duties, but the Applicant's failure to disclose agency and proper demand was dispositive.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Order nisi that the Applicant pay the 1st and 2nd Respondents their costs of this application on the District Court scale with a certificate for counsel.