Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building management ordinance (cap. 344)

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2011

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KENNEDY TOWN BUILDING v. MUKSCH ROLAND AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KENNEDY TOWN BUILDING v. MUKSCH ROLAND AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM292/2010

The Aisle is a common part; the respondents' works altered the Aisle and required reinstatement; estoppel and acquiescence were not established; Applicant entitled to damages for reinstatement; award fixed at HK$7,000; replacement of fire doors not proven; no order as to costs (order nisi).
17 Apr 2004

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SEA VIEW ESTATE v. ADSIN DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SEA VIEW ESTATE v. ADSIN DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM357/2003

The Tribunal held that neither the DMC nor the Building Management Ordinance exempts owners from paying management fees where annual budgets were not prepared; because the management fees for 2000–2003 remained unchanged from earlier duly approved budgets, the Applicant validly demanded and was entitled to recover the arrears and interest under the DMC; the respondents' grounds of opposition failed.
17 Apr 2004

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SEA VIEW ESTATE v. ADSIN DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SEA VIEW ESTATE v. ADSIN DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM355/2003

The Tribunal held that the respondents remained liable for management fees for January 2000–March 2004 because the fees remained unchanged from previously approved budgets for 1998–1999 and neither the DMC nor the Building Management Ordinance nullified the Applicant's demands; accordingly the respondents must pay specified arrears with interest and pay costs subject to costs orders nisi.
10 Nov 1999

LEUNG KWOK FU AND OTHERS v. CHEN KONG MIAN AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG KWOK FU AND OTHERS v. CHEN KONG MIAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3779/1999

The court lawfully exercised its broad discretion under Rule 7 to dispense with personal service because the company and its officers already knew the terms and consequences of the order; therefore the summons to set aside the dispensation was dismissed and committal proceedings against the responsible officers may proceed.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KENNEDY TOWN BUILDING v. MUKSCH ROLAND AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SEA VIEW ESTATE v. ADSIN DEVELOPMENT LTD

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SEA VIEW ESTATE v. ADSIN DEVELOPMENT LTD

LEUNG KWOK FU AND OTHERS v. CHEN KONG MIAN AND OTHERS