Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contingency fund

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2015

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MANDARIN COURT ARBUTHNOT ROAD v. GOLDBEACH INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MANDARIN COURT ARBUTHNOT ROAD v. GOLDBEACH INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM110/2014

The tribunal held that the contingency fund was established to meet the same types of expenses already contemplated by the DMC (urgent/unforeseen repairs and shortfalls in daily management expenses) and therefore the DMC's management share ratio governs contribution; the applicant's claim based on undivided share apportionment was dismissed.
28 Jan 2014

NOMINSHARE LTD v.THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KWONG FUNG TERRACE

Citation

NOMINSHARE LTD v.THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KWONG FUNG TERRACE
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM191/2011

The works fell within the DMC definition of Management Expenses and within the general/contingency fund under sections 20(1)(a) and 20(2) BMO; accordingly the management committee had statutory authority under sections 21 and 22 of the BMO, and the DMC allocation (Schedule 2) governed apportionment and payment timing; Paragraph 4(2) special fund was not applicable to this specific project; applicant's procedural objections were technical and did not invalidate the committee's determinations, so applicant's claim is dismissed and respondent succeeds on its counterclaim.
10 Aug 2010

J & V LTD v. ISS EASTPOINT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

J & V LTD v. ISS EASTPOINT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM242/2009

The DMC did not authorise raising a lump-sum Litigation Fund for unexpected litigation under Clause D(1)(d); such expenditure falls within a contingency fund authorised by BMO s20(2) and apportioned by owners' undivided shares under s22(2), so the corporation validly raised the Fund and the Applicant was liable to contribute. However Clause F(4) only permits registration of a charge for sums due under the DMC (MF and AC); the registered Charge related only to the Litigation Fund (not sums specified under the DMC) and therefore was not chargeable under Clause F(4) and must be vacated. The Appl…
12 Mar 2009

RE THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASIO MANSION (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

RE THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASIO MANSION (IN LIQUIDATION)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1/2007

The court granted a permanent stay of the winding-up order and ordered release of the liquidators because all creditors claims had been satisfied, the contingency and external liability funds and provisions were sufficient to meet outstanding liquidation costs, no further investigation was required, the Incorporated Owners would be solvent after payment of liabilities, and there was consent or no objection from interested parties; granting the stay served the public and commercial interests by clearing title and facilitating management return.
3 Aug 2007

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUEN WAN GARDEN v. PRIME LIGHT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUEN WAN GARDEN v. PRIME LIGHT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM56/2006

The 2nd Resolution is void because it purportedly established a contingency fund under s20 BMO without complying with s21(4) and the Fifth Schedule (no budget prepared) and because the DMC already provided for apportionment so contributions should have been fixed under the DMC; the 1st Resolution (fixed under the DMC pursuant to the owners' 2005 Resolution) remains effective and entitles the Applicant to recover HKD 1,675,043.50 plus interest and costs.
10 Aug 2005

RE THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FOREMOST BUILDING

Citation

RE THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FOREMOST BUILDING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW47/2004

The court directed that (1) the s34 BMO right of action is an asset of the corporation and its value equals the amount required to discharge the corporation's debts and liabilities (net of assets in hand); (2) post-liquidation interest under s264A Cap.32 is a statutory obligation of the liquidator and not a corporate debt for purposes of s34; (3) the liquidators are sanctioned under s199(1)(b) Cap.32 to establish a contingency fund under s20(2) BMO (subject to s20A tendering rules where applicable) to meet estimated costs and expenses which, under s22(3), become presently payable debts; and (…

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MANDARIN COURT ARBUTHNOT ROAD v. GOLDBEACH INDUSTRIAL LTD

NOMINSHARE LTD v.THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KWONG FUNG TERRACE

J & V LTD v. ISS EASTPOINT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

RE THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASIO MANSION (IN LIQUIDATION)

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUEN WAN GARDEN v. PRIME LIGHT LTD

RE THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FOREMOST BUILDING