Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building management ordinance s.18(2)(fa)

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. WONG WAI CHEUNG PETER AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. WONG WAI CHEUNG PETER AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM285/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because respondents failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or other reason in the interests of justice; on the merits the Tribunal found Clause 4(f) of the DMC together with s.18(2)(fa) BMO authorised improvement works including addition of a lift, the 215 EGM approved the works via the attached List, the HK$10,000 refund did not prejudice respondents as the IO agreed to set off, the collection fee is not a penalty, and respondents bore the burden to prove any increase in insurance premium; Bayview Mansion was not helpful post-1998 amendment.
31 Oct 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. CHAN MAU TANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. CHAN MAU TANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM287/2014

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the respondents failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or interest of justice: the Tribunal found the DMC together with Building Management Ordinance s.18(2)(fa) authorised improvement works including adding a lift, the contested works were approved at the 215 EGM, the IO agreed to set off the HK$10,000 payment, the collection fee was not a penalty, respondents produced no evidence of increased insurance premium, and Bayview Mansion distinctions were rendered otiose by the 1998 amendment.
31 Oct 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM283/2014

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the respondents failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other interests of justice: the Tribunal's findings that the DMC and the amended BMO allow improvement works including adding a lift, that the works were authorised at the 215 EGM, that the collection fee is not penal, and that respondents bore the evidential burden on increased insurance premium stand; the HK$10,000 issue will be addressed by set off agreed by the IO.
31 Oct 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. YEUNG CHUEN LING SAMUEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. YEUNG CHUEN LING SAMUEL AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM286/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondents failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other interest of justice: the Tribunal found Clause 4(f) of the DMC and s.18(2)(fa) of the BMO authorised the IO to carry out improvement works including adding a lift; the contested works were on the agenda and approved at the 215 EGM as evidenced by the list attached to the minutes; respondents did not properly plead or prove entitlement to a HK$10,000 credit and IO offered to set off it; collection fee was not penal or extravagant; respondents failed to adduce evidence that insura…
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. CHAN MAU TANG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. CHAN MAU TANG AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM287/2014

The tribunal held that s.14 and s.18(2)(fa) of the Building Management Ordinance together with the DMC (notably Clause 4(f)) empowered the Incorporated Owners to carry out the approved works and bind all owners to contribute; failure to provide further particulars or certain administrative letters did not vitiate the owners' resolution; the unapproved 10% additional contingency was not recoverable; the 5% surcharge and $150 collection fee were valid contractual remedies and not penalties; accordingly claims succeeded except as to the unapproved 10% charge and costs were ordered nisi.
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. WONG YUK FUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. WONG YUK FUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM288/2014

The tribunal found the resolutions fall within the IO's statutory and contractual powers (BMO s.14 and s.18(2)(fa); DMC Clause 4(f)), so respondents are liable to pay apportioned contributions approved at the owners meeting; the 10% contingency charge was not approved and is disallowed; the 5% surcharge and $150 collection fee are authorized by the DMC and are not penalties, so they are recoverable.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. WONG WAI CHEUNG PETER AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. CHAN MAU TANG AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. YEUNG CHUEN LING SAMUEL AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. CHAN MAU TANG AND OTHERS

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. WONG YUK FUNG AND OTHERS