Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Apportionment of management expenses

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2023

HONG KONG HOUSING SOCIETY v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HEYA STAR

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA874/2019

The court held that subdivision and apportionment of broad management expense heads is permissible under the DMC; security guard salaries (Guards) related solely to Residential Common Areas and must be borne by the owners of the Flats under clause 6.4.2(a); by contrast, repair and replacement costs of the fire service installations were estate-wide in purpose and properly apportioned as Estate Common Facilities under clause 6.4.2(d); accordingly the Budgets must be modified only to reallocate Guards' costs to residential owners and the remainder of the Plaintiff's claims fail.
14 Jan 2013

THOROGOOD ESTATES LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ROBINSON HEIGHTS

Citation

THOROGOOD ESTATES LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ROBINSON HEIGHTS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV58/2012

The DMC, read purposively, requires the Management Budget to be divided under D5 so that management expenses attributable solely to the Garage are borne by Car Park Owners and those attributable solely to the Units (towers/flats) are borne by Owners of those Units; where expenses are not solely attributable, the fallback charging provisions (E1/E2) apply. Therefore it is not permissible to bypass identification of which parts of the works relate to Garage, Tower(s) and Building when determining contributions; the appeal is allowed and the preliminary issue is answered in the negative.
10 Feb 2012

THOROGOOD ESTATES LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ROBINSON HEIGHTS

Citation

THOROGOOD ESTATES LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ROBINSON HEIGHTS<br>
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM297/2010

On true construction of the DMC the relevant apportionment is governed by management units under Clauses E1 and E2; there is no provision requiring prior identification of which parts of the works relate to Garage, Towers or Building common areas before apportionment by management units can be applied; Clause D5(a) deals only with apportionment among multiple car-park owners and is inapplicable where the applicant owns the whole garage; therefore the whole costs may be shared and contributed by all owners in proportion to management units without separate identification.
19 Oct 2010

FANINGTON CO LTD AND OTHERS v. UNITE PATRON LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

FANINGTON CO LTD AND OTHERS v. UNITE PATRON LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMP2/2010

The DMC's Part 3 and Part 4 confer management powers to incur and recover legal costs and expressly include legal fees as management expenses; therefore the taxed costs awarded to the Applicants are management expenses to be apportioned according to management shares under the DMC (s.39 BMO), the Tribunal will exercise its s.17(1)(b) discretion to grant leave to issue execution against all owners (excluding 2nd and 4th Applicants from apportionment as successful parties), and owners who have paid may be pursued internally for contribution but may be required to contribute to the judgment by l…
8 Jun 2006

KWOK MO KAI DORIS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KARIN COURT

Citation

KWOK MO KAI DORIS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KARIN COURT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV267/2005

Clause 8(b) empowers the Manager only to revise the amounts of monthly contributions (upwards or downwards) while preserving the apportionment ratios set out in clause 3 and the Third Schedule; the Incorporated Owners as Manager had no power to alter the incidence of liability among co-owners under the DMC, and the applicant was not barred by waiver, acquiescence or estoppel from enforcing those entitlements (appeal dismissed).
11 Mar 2005

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUI CHUK GARDEN v. EDENTOWN LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUI CHUK GARDEN v. EDENTOWN LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM303/2004

Clause 14 does not prohibit the apportionment of lump‑sum service costs provided apportionment is done on a benefit basis and is reasonably justified; the definition of Commercial Development in Clause 1 can include common parts intended for commercial use; however specific apportionments lacking evidential support must be excluded. Applying these principles the tribunal held several disputed apportionments were unsupported and the Applicant's claim based on the second part of the budget failed.
11 Nov 2004

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUI CHUK GARDEN v. EDENTOWN LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUI CHUK GARDEN v. EDENTOWN LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM87/2004

The Tribunal dismissed the 1st Respondent's application because it lacked jurisdiction to order how an awarded costs sum is funded or to vary the contractual apportionment in the DMC; accordingly the original costs order stands and the 1st Respondent's variation is refused.
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…