Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acquiescence and waiver

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2024

CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASTLE PEAK ROAD INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1179
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2021

The Court dismissed the appeal because the Judge was correct to refuse to admit new illegality/minor-works arguments that were not pursued at trial, correctly found the Pre- and Post-Window Frames to be the same structures, and correctly held that the 2017 management committee resolution validly approved the existing non-structural installations thereby waiving/acquiescing breaches of the DMC and s34I(1)(a) BMO; the de minimis finding on Clause 10(g) was a factual conclusion open to the tribunal; accordingly the 2017 Resolution was effective and the incorporated owners had not acted unlawfull…
21 Jun 2023

東樂大樓業主立案法團 v. 黃志剛

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 34
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM72/2018

On balance of probabilities the storm drain was altered by the owner/occupier of Flat 2D or predecessor by connecting storm drain to sewage pipes in breach of the DMC and s34I BMO; that alteration foreseeably caused the 4 May 2017 backflow which damaged the elevator; successor‑in‑title liability applies and applicant did not acquiesce, therefore damages and a mandatory injunction to reinstate the sewage pipes are warranted.
10 Oct 2018

WIN GLORIES LTD v. MAJORLUCK LTD

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 80
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE494/2018

Tribunal found some breaches (hair salon and private tuition centres) but held the applicant had acquiesced in those changes of use such that recovery of possession was not justified; the applicant was given one month under section 58(2) to remedy breaches, failing which the respondent would be ordered to pay damages fixed at HK$10,000 per month per breached stall; overall the application for recovery of vacant possession was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent (HK$5,000).
1 Aug 2001

HO CHING YI v. CORE PACIFIC YAMAICHI SECURITIES (HK) LTD.

Citation

HO CHING YI v. CORE PACIFIC YAMAICHI SECURITIES (HK) LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ13988/2000

No contractual or tortious duty existed on the defendant to send monthly statements or to notify of the allotment; the plaintiff was or ought to have been aware of the allotment and his own decisions and conduct broke the causal chain; accordingly the plaintiff's claim failed and was dismissed; costs to defendant with certificate for counsel and order nisi to be made absolute after 14 days.
13 Jun 1996

WONG PUN MAN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING

Citation

WONG PUN MAN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM113/1995

Section 21 does not permit a corporation or management committee by resolution to vary contractual apportionments set out in a DMC; past payments of non‑DMC proportions resulted in waiver/estoppel for the period up to 31 March 1995 such that Applicants were liable for those years, but for the period commencing 1 April 1995 the Respondent failed to prove acquiescence of sufficient notoriety and duration so Applicants remain entitled to enforce the DMC apportionment; alternatively any prior acquiescence was suspensive and was terminated by Applicants' objection. The Seventh Schedule did not app…

Hong Kong Case Law

CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASTLE PEAK ROAD INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER

東樂大樓業主立案法團 v. 黃志剛

WIN GLORIES LTD v. MAJORLUCK LTD

HO CHING YI v. CORE PACIFIC YAMAICHI SECURITIES (HK) LTD.

WONG PUN MAN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING