Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building regulation compliance

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2008

TONG TAK MAN v. YUEN CHEONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TONG TAK MAN v. YUEN CHEONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI775/2007

The court held that the documents sought were relevant to the pleaded allegation that demolition‑related poles were negligently installed and that such documents likely existed; because earlier identification would promote cost savings and fair disposal, specific discovery in the terms of the summons was ordered and costs were awarded against the 3rd defendant for unjustified refusal without seeking clarification.
13 Jul 2007

KO CHING CHUNG v. FULLTIN INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

KO CHING CHUNG v. FULLTIN INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV337/2006

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the defendant's managing director made factual assurances that the premises were fit for a restaurant and that a licence could be obtained; those assurances were intended to induce the plaintiff to sign the provisional tenancy and amounted to a warranty. A qualified surveyor's report showing structural non‑compliance with the Building (Construction) Regulations rendered the representations false, entitling the plaintiff to recover the deposit and requiring dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.
7 Feb 1994

JENMASTER DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. LAM WAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

JENMASTER DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. LAM WAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4206/1993

The balcony constituted an easement/appurtenance that passed by operation of s.16 Cap.219 despite omission in later assignments; the purchaser's second requisition arose as a direct consequence of the first and was not time‑barred; the vendors failed to provide satisfactory answers to material requisitions about the existence and legality of enclosed balcony works affecting title; accordingly the purchaser was entitled to the declaratory relief sought and ancillary orders (including orders nisi as to reimbursement and costs).
5 Nov 1991

MADAM CHEN WONG LAW BO v. GOLDORCHIT PROPERTIES LTD.

Citation

MADAM CHEN WONG LAW BO v. GOLDORCHIT PROPERTIES LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/1991

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings that the vendor's agents had represented that the alterations were properly carried out and/or approved, that those representations were false and binding on the vendor, and that they were material affecting title; the judge's grant of leave to amend was within his discretion and caused no injustice, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment restored.
24 May 1983

CHO HSUN CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

CHO HSUN CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1910/1982

The 6.5 metre rear strip (the 7-foot set back together with the 3-foot reserved right of way) constitutes a street more than 4.5 metres wide within the Buildings Ordinance and Building (Planning) Regulations; the existence of temporary structures did not change its essential features or reduce its width; accordingly the Building Authority's objections under the Buildings Ordinance/Building (Planning) Regulations (including section 16(1)(d) as applied) to the 1981 submissions were valid and the plaintiff's application is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

TONG TAK MAN v. YUEN CHEONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

KO CHING CHUNG v. FULLTIN INVESTMENT LTD

JENMASTER DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. LAM WAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

MADAM CHEN WONG LAW BO v. GOLDORCHIT PROPERTIES LTD.

CHO HSUN CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL