Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building management ordinance s34i

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

LOK KIN CHUEN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LOCKHART HOUSE

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1658
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1343/2022

The sanctioned offer was invalid because the proposed "lifetime tenancy" is not a recognised or sufficiently certain form of relief under Hong Kong law and, in the factual context (storeroom a common part and BMO s34I/DMC constraints), the defendant was prima facie justified in refusing it; therefore RDC O.22 r.24(1) was not engaged and indemnity costs under O.22 r.24 were not payable, so the O.22 summons is dismissed and the order nisi is made absolute with costs to the defendant.
8 Apr 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HAIPHONG MANSION v. JAMES S. LEE & COMPANY (KOWLOON) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 15
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM138/2021

Tribunal held the pre-2018 A Signs were unlawful but the post-2018 Sign is lawful; on the facts the IO’s prolonged, prominent and unchallenged tolerance for decades amounted to acquiescence, proprietary estoppel and laches which, applying Patel, were not defeated by the historical illegality because the illegality was background and the post-2018 sign is lawful; accordingly equitable defences bar IO’s claims and the IO’s application for declarations, injunctions and mesne profits was dismissed.
3 Jul 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 589
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP189/2023

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal: the 2002 Agreement did not imply a unilateral right for the Incorporated Owners to terminate at will by reasonable notice. On proper construction an implied right to terminate exists only where a party has a legitimate need to restore the original configuration; the IO's blanket six-month termination notice was ineffective to terminate the Agreement and the Lands Tribunal order for reinstatement is set aside and the IO's application dismissed (save that the Tribunal's dismissal of Join Profit's counterclaim is retained).
3 Jul 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 589
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV102/2023

The Court held the Lands Tribunal erred in implying an unfettered term permitting the IO to unilaterally terminate the Agreement by reasonable notice without cause; on proper construction the Agreement is not terminable at will but may be terminated by reasonable notice only where a party demonstrates a legitimate need to restore the original configuration (e.g. to comply with legal duties under the DMC/BMO or lawful commercial necessity); applying that construction the IO’s notice was ineffective and the IO’s application must be dismissed.
30 Apr 2024

NG YUI TONG v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 35
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM1/2023

On true construction of DMC III in its context the Respondent was empowered under Clause 7(a), including 7(a)(11) and 7(a)(24), to install and operate the Replacement Appliances as acts "in connection with" or "reasonably incidental to" management; accordingly the Applicant's claims fail and the application is dismissed.
3 Aug 2023

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HUNG WAI BUILDING v. SUNNY ELEGANT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 930
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP351/2022

The Court held the Judge did not err in law or in the exercise of case management discretion: the disputed issues on access and safety (Issues 2,4,5) were peripheral to the primary dispute about whether areas are common parts and could be resolved without the proposed expert evidence; the respondents failed to demonstrate relevance or necessity of the proposed expert evidence; appointment of a single joint expert on the narrow reformulated Issue 1 was appropriate; the renewed application for leave to appeal was not reasonably arguable and was refused.
21 Jun 2023

東樂大樓業主立案法團 v. 黃志剛

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 34
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM72/2018

On balance of probabilities the storm drain was altered by the owner/occupier of Flat 2D or predecessor by connecting storm drain to sewage pipes in breach of the DMC and s34I BMO; that alteration foreseeably caused the 4 May 2017 backflow which damaged the elevator; successor‑in‑title liability applies and applicant did not acquiesce, therefore damages and a mandatory injunction to reinstate the sewage pipes are warranted.
31 Mar 2023

好安樓業主立案法團 v. LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 26
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM129/2020

Photographic evidence established that the respondent stored personal belongings in adjacent common areas and thus is prohibited from storing items in common areas under s34I and the DMC; however, storage inside the demised car park, while a change of use, was not shown to be a nuisance or to involve hazardous/combustible materials and the DMC did not expressly prohibit storage, so the applicant's claim to remove items and reinstate the car park was dismissed; injunctive relief must be proportionate and the appropriate remedy was a prohibition against occupying common areas rather than orderi…
21 Oct 2022

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 56
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM103/2019

The Chinese Agreement constitutes a licence (a permit) granted by the Incorporated Owners to Concord Star and successors to use the original corridor; no equitable/proprietary interest passed because the IO had no proprietary title to common parts to assign; the licence was not coupled with a proprietary interest and, in the absence of an express duration, the court implies a term that it is terminable on reasonable notice; six months' notice served was reasonable; no estoppel or acquiescence barred enforcement; accordingly the IO was entitled to an order for reinstatement, injunction and cos…
30 Nov 2018

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAM LUK BUILDING v. POON MUI SANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1493
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1649/2016

Applying binding authorities, the court held that adverse possession of common parts is not precluded as a matter of law; on the facts D1 established continuous exclusive possession of Staircase 75 since 1973 with requisite acts of ownership and thus acquired possessory title extinguishing plaintiff's rights under the Limitation Ordinance; although D4's family occupied Staircase 81 historically, D4 personally only took exclusive possession from about 2006 and so did not meet statutory periods; independently, plaintiff and predecessors acquiesced in long‑standing occupation such that equitable…