Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building management ordinance cap.344

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2022

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ELITE GARDEN v. SHUN HO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 28
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM83/2019

Licences expired and contained express renewal requirements; evidence did not establish any clear representation, detrimental reliance or acquiescence by the applicant sufficient to found estoppel or legitimate expectation; experts found the cooling tower to be unauthorized and unsafe but removable; accordingly mandatory injunction ordering removal and restoration within 63 days was justified, counterclaim for renewal dismissed, nominal damages awarded and costs to applicant ordered.
25 May 2017

LAM YIN MAN formerly known as LAM CHIU CHI v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KWUN TONG INDUSTRIAL CENTRE

Citation

LAM YIN MAN formerly known as LAM CHIU CHI v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KWUN TONG INDUSTRIAL CENTRE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3714/2014

The Common Area was agreed and found to be a common part; plaintiff as a co-owner had rights under the DMC to use it; IO failed to prove exclusive possession, conversion or trespass by the plaintiff or her son and failed to prove time, duration and frequency of any wrongful occupation; consequently IO was not entitled to mesne profits or other damages and the plaintiff's injunction claim lacked merit; both claim and counterclaim were dismissed and no costs order was made (costs order nisi: no order as to costs, certificate to counsel).
15 Feb 2011

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE

Citation

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT60/2006

The application to change the expert and to adduce the Cook report was dismissed because the plaintiff produced the substitute expert's report as a fait accompli without adequate explanation for not seeking prior leave, and the asserted unavailability of the original experts was insufficient; accordingly the court exercised its case management discretion to refuse the substitution, directed that the plaintiff may file the amended reply and must rely on Wu & Cheung to prepare a reply report within a fixed period, and made consequential directions and costs orders.
26 Jan 2006

PLENTY INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HENG NGAI JEWELRY CENTRE

Citation

PLENTY INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HENG NGAI JEWELRY CENTRE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6285/2005

District Court held it has concurrent jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' rights arose from the DMC (including terms incorporated by section 34E BMO) and not solely from the BMO; there were serious questions to be tried and the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo to prevent a fait accompli, therefore an interim injunction restraining the IO from taking steps to appoint a new manager until the Adjourned Hearing was granted; jurisdictional strike-out applications for want of jurisdiction were dismissed.
31 Jan 2001

SIU SIU HING t/a CHUNG SHING MANAGEMENT CO. v. THE LAND REGISTRAR

Citation

SIU SIU HING t/a CHUNG SHING MANAGEMENT CO. v. THE LAND REGISTRAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL77/2000

The Ordinance must be construed purposively to permit incorporation of owners of groups of buildings without a single common undivided share; the management committee was validly appointed under section 3 in accordance with the Ordinance and the DMC did not override statutory appointment procedures; the Land Registrar made reasonable enquiries and section 13 renders the Certificate of Registration conclusive against collateral procedural challenges, therefore the Registrar's decision to issue the Certificate was lawful and the judicial review fails.
8 Jun 2000

WONG LAI KAI v. WU CHAN CHOI AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG LAI KAI v. WU CHAN CHOI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV195/1999

Plaintiff failed to prove on the evidence that the awning was attached to parts of the external wall that were not specified or designated in any registered instrument as for exclusive use; absent proof the awning was part of the common parts, liability under the Building Management Ordinance did not attach to the incorporated owners. The tenant (5th Defendant) had the exclusive use/benefit and therefore the duty to maintain under s.34H, so 6th Defendant not liable; appeal dismissed.
25 May 2000

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MAN FUK BUILDING v. TAI SHANG INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MAN FUK BUILDING v. TAI SHANG INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM246/1999

The DMC and first assignment did not reserve the existing playground (LG2 Block A) and caretaker quarter (Ground Floor Block B) to the respondent; Land Registry entries, control cards and approved plans are not themselves documents of title and cannot override the absence of reserved undivided shares in the title documents; consequently areas not the subject of exclusive possession are common parts and the respondent must cease occupation and reinstate them.
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…