Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Allocation of undivided shares

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. KWAN WUI CHE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA72/2024

The specific provisions in clauses 4(f)(2)-(4) and the Third Schedule, which expressly require no deposits or monthly management fees from carpark owners and tie further contributions to those who pay monthly sums, must be given effect; consequently carpark owners are not liable to pay contributions under clause 4(f)(1) and the appellant's proposed appeal was unarguable and without reasonable prospect of success, so leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 Apr 2022

SPM LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS ORDINANCE)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1574/2021

On proper construction of the DMC the allocation of 1 undivided share to the External Walls combined with clause D1(i) confers the full and exclusive right and privilege to hold, use and occupy that part on the registered holder of the share, so the 5/F–30/F External Walls are not common parts under s.2 of the BMO; the Appeal Tribunal's contrary construction was an error of law, the Determination is quashed and the obligation to repair lies on the registered owner (Wideland) under the DMC (clause F7(a)).
23 Aug 2010

WU SHUK CHUN v. KWONG OI LIN AND OTHERS

Citation

WU SHUK CHUN v. KWONG OI LIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2301/2006

Clause 10, read as a whole, is binding on the beneficiaries and creates a personal option/right in favour of the other beneficiaries enforceable between them; the option requires reasonable notice and gives other beneficiaries a fair opportunity to purchase (the selling beneficiary may sell to any one of them); the court will not determine issues in paragraph 3 (allocation of undivided and management shares, common areas, third party rights) without full material and expert evidence and therefore those matters are adjourned.
12 Dec 2000

YIP NGAN YEE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN TSZ YAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

YIP NGAN YEE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN TSZ YAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV442/2000

The requisitions were properly and sufficiently precise; the vendors' schedule/list and references did not adequately answer the requisitions before completion; therefore the vendors breached the agreement by failing to answer in reasonable time and could not rescind or forfeit the deposit; purchasers entitled to repayment of the balance of deposit with interest, costs and a declaration as to indemnity, and mesne profits run from the date purchasers entered possession under the licence (18 February 1997).
15 Jul 2000

YAU ALLEN LEE NAM v. LO KING MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

YAU ALLEN LEE NAM v. LO KING MAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16782/1998

The Ord.14A application was refused because the core disputes (completeness of the SDC, alleged non-disclosure/candour, and waiver/timing of requisitions) are factually intertwined with legal questions and cannot be resolved as pure questions of law or construction; defendants had answered that the copies provided were the only copies located (including Lands Registry copy) and the court will not require proof of a negative; allocation of shares did not, on pleaded facts, create a fatal title defect; these issues must proceed to trial.
23 Dec 1997

HINEX UNIVERSAL DESIGN CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. v. CHAN LAI HING

Citation

HINEX UNIVERSAL DESIGN CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. v. CHAN LAI HING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2292/1997

Subject to any constraints in the Deed of Mutual Covenant or other documents, a subsequent owner has the same unfettered right as the developer to allocate undivided shares vested in him, and a vendor's title is not automatically defective for inability to produce documentary evidence of allotment where the chain of assignments and registry entries are consistent with the asserted allocation.
24 Feb 1997

GOLDJET INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD. v. LING KI WAI and Others

Citation

GOLDJET INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD. v. LING KI WAI and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4160/1996

Where an unchallenged assignment (including the root of title) and supporting Land Registry records demonstrate that a unit was allotted a specific undivided share, the vendor has shown good title; absent evidence of irregularity or undisclosed documents the vendor is not required to produce assignments or allocation schedules for all other units and a purchaser's requisition based on control card anomalies is insufficient to justify rescission.
4 Jul 1995

Sheenip Industries Ltd. v. Champion Billion Development Ltd.

Citation

Sheenip Industries Ltd. v. Champion Billion Development Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1390/1995

The Staircase formed part of Flat B as built and as shown coloured on the annexed 11th floor plan; the 1st Assignment conveyed the Staircase by virtue of the annexed plans despite lack of verbal mention; subsequent assignments that omitted the 11th floor plan did not defeat that proprietary right; the developer was free to allocate the 107/108 undivided shares under the DMC absent clear restriction; accordingly the Vendor's requisition answers were sufficient and the Purchaser's challenged claim fails.