Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of deed of mutual covenants

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2024

YIP YUET MING AND ANOTHER v. LIU KING WA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1404
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2165/2024

On the pleaded facts showing ownership, express and implied DMC obligations, inspection attributing the source of seepage to the Defendant's flat, and the Defendant's failure to remediate after notice, the court exercised its discretion under O.19 r.7 to enter default judgment and grant both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions and leave damages to be assessed; service was proper and Defendant was in default.
11 Jan 2019

TIN FOO INVESTMENT CO LTD v. PREVIGOR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2873
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1675/2014

The court held that where water seepage is shown to originate from the defendant's premises and the defendant had or should have had notice but failed to take reasonable remedial steps within a reasonable time, the defendant is liable in nuisance and/or for breach of the Deed of Mutual Covenants; the plaintiff's claimed loss of rental income was accepted where the quantum was not challenged and mitigation was considered in the judgment.
18 Oct 2017

YIK YUEN LING v. TSO WING YAN

Citation

YIK YUEN LING v. TSO WING YAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ813/2014

On the balance of probabilities the court found the seepage at Office 3A was sourced from the defendant's Flat Roof; defendant knew or ought to have known of the source and failed to take reasonable steps to abate it; defendant breached DMC covenants and was liable in nuisance and negligence; plaintiff entitled to damages for reinstatement, reasonable alternative accommodation and surveyor fees and to an injunction ordering defendant to make the Flat Roof watertight within 90 days.
20 Aug 2015

CHEUNG YAT PING AND ANOTHER v. YIP TAI HIM AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG YAT PING AND ANOTHER v. YIP TAI HIM AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2259/2012

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants' premises were the source of the dripping water; evidence established at least one alternative source (external wall rainwater ingress), subsequent testing of defendants' bathroom was negative and repairs had been done, therefore claims in breach of DMC, nuisance and negligence fail.
11 Nov 2014

JOYBASE CORPORATION LTD v. LI KAI FAI

Citation

JOYBASE CORPORATION LTD v. LI KAI FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2013

The trial judge lawfully accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence that the water loss emanated from the Upper Flat and, on the totality of the evidence, the defendant breached the deed of mutual covenants and section 34H of the Building Management Ordinance; the appellant did not meet the high threshold required to overturn findings of primary fact, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
20 Apr 2005

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YEE FUNG GARDEN v. BASIC TECH LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YEE FUNG GARDEN v. BASIC TECH LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV40/2003

Appellate court upheld the trial judge's exercise of discretion to grant a mandatory injunction in relation to most impugned works because the DMC and relevant statutes governed the works, managers were justified in withholding consent pending proper structural plans and inspection, and statutory breaches were established; however the court allowed the appeal insofar as the mandatory injunction related to the gas pipe and the relocated/expanded toilets, setting aside the mandatory relief for those items and holding a declaration of breach (rather than mandatory restoration) to be sufficient g…
25 Apr 1991

CHAN SAP AND ANOTHER v. WU SHAIO WU AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN SAP AND ANOTHER v. WU SHAIO WU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA720/1986

Court awarded 1st Plaintiff the full cost of remedial repairs ($102,000) and 2nd Plaintiff the proven value of damaged raw materials and finished products ($45,874); the claim for loss of profits ($90,300) was dismissed for lack of reliable evidence. Interest at 10% per annum from date of writ to judgment and costs to plaintiffs with certificate for counsel were ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

YIP YUET MING AND ANOTHER v. LIU KING WA

TIN FOO INVESTMENT CO LTD v. PREVIGOR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

YIK YUEN LING v. TSO WING YAN

CHEUNG YAT PING AND ANOTHER v. YIP TAI HIM AND ANOTHER

JOYBASE CORPORATION LTD v. LI KAI FAI

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YEE FUNG GARDEN v. BASIC TECH LTD AND ANOTHER

CHAN SAP AND ANOTHER v. WU SHAIO WU AND OTHERS