11 Apr 2025
The Court refused an interim stay in respect of the External Wall because the respondents did not seek leave to appeal that part of the judgment and there is no basis to stay execution of a valid, unappealed order; it granted (by consent) an interim stay in respect of the Disputed Areas and awarded costs to the applicant.
30 Mar 2023
The Court declined leave because the central issue turned on the specific construction of the Deed of Mutual Covenant read with the First Assignment in the factual matrix of the building in question; the applicant's grounds amounted to disagreement with the Court of Appeal's construction rather than a question of great general or public importance properly suitable for the Court of Final Appeal.
16 Feb 2021
The court refused to make an unless order and dismissed the plaintiff's summons because the defendant had made substantive disclosure (eight documents and two further documents), there was no clear evidence of additional documents, any non-compliance was minor and technical, the plaintiff suffered no prejudice that would deprive it of a fair trial, and striking out would be disproportionate; the defendant's application for an extension to file an amended defence was granted.
22 Dec 2020
The court found on the balance of probabilities that the grandfather and family occupied the roof pursuant to an express oral licence from the Union/IO (confirmed by the 1995 minute), the occupation was not adverse while the licence subsisted, and even if any adverse possession arose it was of insufficient duration; accordingly plaintiff's claim for possessory title failed and was dismissed.
11 Apr 2019
Court exercised discretion to permit the defendant to withdraw its admission and to file the Re-amended Defence because the point was arguable and justice required the matter to be ventilated, but the court adjourned the trial to avoid prejudicing the plaintiff; costs of the adjournment were apportioned between the parties and left to be taxed or agreed, with specific percentages allocated to the plaintiff.
15 Jun 2012
The Registrar held the defendants lack authority to sue in respect of alleged illegal works and re-demarcation affecting common parts absent consent from the Incorporated Owners under s.16 BMO; the impugned counterclaim paragraphs were general, hypothetical or related to matters (immigration offences) enforceable only by public authorities and not civil claims, and therefore paragraphs and prayers specified disclosing no reasonable cause of action must be struck out.
11 Nov 2008
The waterproof membrane and the cement/sand screeding above it are common parts for which the owners' corporation (1st Respondent) bears a statutory duty to maintain and repair under section 18(1)(a); the concrete tile surface is the roof owner's (2nd Respondent) exclusive part and not a common part; the leakage was caused by aging/failure of the waterproof membrane rather than by the previously erected structures; accordingly the Applicant succeeds against the 1st Respondent (injunction and damages) and fails against the 2nd Respondent.
31 May 2007
The appellant failed to prove the necessary factual possession and animus possidendi for the 20-year limitation period. The acts relied on were equivocal, often constituted ordinary management duties or individual, temporary uses, and did not amount to single and exclusive possession to exclude the paper title owner; therefore no adverse possession or dispossession occurred and the respondent's title remains intact.
11 Jan 2006
The pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action in proprietary estoppel such that it would be inappropriate to strike out: the facts alleged show prima facie encouragement/acquiescence by the developer and detriment to owners, and issues of unconscionability and true detriment require trial determination; the I.O. has locus standi under the statutory scheme. Therefore the strike‑out application is dismissed and the matter proceeds to trial.
31 Mar 2003
The Tribunal found the external walls were not common parts because Clause 3(b) of the Deed of Mutual Covenant granted exclusive rights to the First Owner(s), and the Applicants failed to discharge the onus of showing the judgment arose from common parts; alternatively, even if the external walls were common parts, the Tribunal would refuse to exercise its discretion to grant leave because Applicants had not taken reasonable steps (notably winding up the incorporated owners) and it would be unjust to enforce the entire judgment against a single minor co-owner who was not culpable.