嘉澤管理服務有限公司 v. 南洋硅膠工業集團有限公司

嘉澤管理服務有限公司 v. 南洋硅膠工業集團有限公司

No stay: the Tribunal found no common issue because the High Court Action is a trespass/possession claim focused on demolition and alleged unauthorised leasing, whereas the LDBM Claims concern entitlement to recover contributions for renovation authorised by owners' resolutions; the legality of the renovation is not pleaded or determinative in the HCA, so the stay application fails.

Citation
嘉澤管理服務有限公司 v. 南洋硅膠工業集團有限公司
Parties
Applicant (management Company of Jordan Square): Applicant; Respondent (owner of Shop 209 and Shop 320): Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 January 2016
Case Number
LDBM177/2015
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application (lands Tribunal) / Application for Stay of LDBM Proceedings Pending High Court Action
Outcome
Summons dated 8 September 2015 dismissed; stay refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Ultra Vires, Trespass, Owners' Meetings and Resolutions, Contribution to Renovation Costs, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Land Law Civil Procedure Tort Stay of Proceedings Ultra Vires Trespass Owners' Meetings and Resolutions +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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant (management Company of Jordan Square)

Respondent

Respondent (owner of Shop 209 and Shop 320)

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application (lands Tribunal) / Application for Stay of LDBM Proceedings Pending High Court Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a common issue between the High Court Action and the LDBM Claims warranting a stay
  2. 2 Whether the demolition works are part of or the same as the renovation works
  3. 3 Whether the renovation works were ultra vires the manager's powers under the Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant

Ratio Decidendi

No stay: the Tribunal found no common issue because the High Court Action is a trespass/possession claim focused on demolition and alleged unauthorised leasing, whereas the LDBM Claims concern entitlement to recover contributions for renovation authorised by owners' resolutions; the legality of the renovation is not pleaded or determinative in the HCA, so the stay application fails.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 8 September 2015 dismissed; stay refused

Orders

  • Summons dated 8 September 2015 dismissed
  • Costs to follow the event: costs of the Summons to the applicant with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed at District Court scale