TECH FOCUS LTD v. AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

TECH FOCUS LTD v. AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found the defendants in breach by unreasonably delaying compliance with the consent order; "forthwith" required prompt commissioning and carrying out of the repair and defendants could not rely on internal management or procedural inconveniences that could have been addressed before the consent order; credible expert evidence established defective roof works as the cause of seepage; plaintiff entitled to loss of rent of HKD 340,600 for the 21-month period attributable to defendants' delay.

Citation
TECH FOCUS LTD v. AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: TECH FOCUS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YEE FUNG BUILDING
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 July 2010
Case Number
DCCJ5777/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil District Court (dccj 5777/2006) / Judgment (handed Down 9 July 2010)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Consent Order Enforceability, Meaning of "forthwith", Duty to Repair Common Parts, Delay and Damages, Deed of Mutual Covenant Obligations, S18 Multi Storey Buildings (owners Incorporation) Ordinance, Causation, Quantification of Loss
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Property Construction Statutory Obligations Civil Procedure Consent Order Enforceability Meaning of "forthwith" +6 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TECH FOCUS LIMITED

Plaintiff

AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED

1st Defendant

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YEE FUNG BUILDING

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil District Court (dccj 5777/2006) / Judgment (handed Down 9 July 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order is enforceable as a contractual obligation
  2. 2 What "forthwith" requires in the context of a consent order made with an incorporated owners' body
  3. 3 Whether defendants' compliance with statutory tendering/meeting requirements and internal management issues excuse delay

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the defendants in breach by unreasonably delaying compliance with the consent order; "forthwith" required prompt commissioning and carrying out of the repair and defendants could not rely on internal management or procedural inconveniences that could have been addressed before the consent order; credible expert evidence established defective roof works as the cause of seepage; plaintiff entitled to loss of rent of HKD 340,600 for the 21-month period attributable to defendants' delay.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in the sum of HKD 340,600 for loss of rent
  • Parties to file submissions on costs within 28 days