益昌大廈業主立案法團 對 TAM WING KEUNG 及另一人

益昌大廈業主立案法團 對 TAM WING KEUNG 及另一人

The tribunal refused permission to appeal because there was no reasonable prospect of success: on the evidence before it respondents had raised prima facie documentary material suggesting unfinished works, contractor insolvency and uncertain use of funds, applicant had not effectively rebutted those matters, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKLdT 20
Parties
Applicant: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YICK CHEONG BUILDING (益昌大廈業主立案法團); First Named Respondent: TAM WING KEUNG; Second Named Respondent: WONG HING KWAN
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Case Number
LDBM121/2018
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Costs Order (post Review)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused; applicant to pay respondents' costs of the permission hearing; costs of the underlying claim: no order as to costs; applicant ordered to pay costs of the costs-review application assessed at HK$3,300.
Legal Topics
Maintenance Contribution Recovery, Costs Orders on Settlement, Permission to Appeal, Disclosure and Accountability of Incorporated Owners
Source Language
ch
Building Management Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Tribunal Practice Maintenance Contribution Recovery Costs Orders on Settlement Permission to Appeal Disclosure and Accountability of Incorporated Owners

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YICK CHEONG BUILDING (益昌大廈業主立案法團)

Applicant

TAM WING KEUNG

First Named Respondent

WONG HING KWAN

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Costs Order (post Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the Land Tribunal's costs review decision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant substantially obtained the relief sought such that costs should be awarded to it
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' allegations of unfinished works, contractor insolvency and misappropriation of funds were relevant to the costs decision

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal refused permission to appeal because there was no reasonable prospect of success: on the evidence before it respondents had raised prima facie documentary material suggesting unfinished works, contractor insolvency and uncertain use of funds, applicant had not effectively rebutted those matters, and the tribunal legitimately exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs for the main claim and to order applicant to pay the costs of the successful costs-review (HK$3,300). Consequently the applicant's challenge to the exercise of discretion had no reasonable chance of success.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused; applicant to pay respondents' costs of the permission hearing; costs of the underlying claim: no order as to costs; applicant ordered to pay costs of the costs-review application assessed at HK$3,300.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused.
  • Applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs of the permission application; if parties cannot agree the amount is to be assessed by the Land Tribunal.