Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of mutual covenant breach

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2024

JOY ASIA LTD v. WONG CHUI HONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1522
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1454/2024

On the pleaded facts defendants were liable for water seepage by reason of breach of the Deed of Mutual Covenant and/or statutory duty under the Building Management Ordinance and/or common law nuisance or negligence; service by letterbox was proper; defendants' default permitted the court to assume implied admission of pleaded facts and to exercise its discretion to enter default judgment and grant a mandatory injunction compelling rectification and award costs, with damages to be assessed.
24 Jun 2024

羅耀珍對吳國強及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 955
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6685/2020

The court accepted the joint expert report and on‑site colour water ponding tests showing colour water from 16C appearing at 15C ceiling and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the source was the failed/defective waterproofing of 16C bathroom. Defendants knew or ought to have known of the problem by January and by September 2020 and failed to take prompt reasonable remedial steps. Consequently defendants were liable in nuisance and negligence and in breach of the Deed of Mutual Covenant and s34H BMO. Plaintiff was entitled to damages (investigation, repair and general) and a mandat…
21 Jul 2022

聯安大廈業主立案法團對劉軍樂

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 30
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM144/2019

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's lay and expert evidence that Structures 1–3 are unauthorised, occupy or alter common parts or the building in breach of clause 10 of the deed and/or s34I of the Building Management Ordinance, and that the respondent's continued possession/use makes him liable; no contrary evidence was adduced by the respondent, so demolition and reinstatement orders with costs were warranted and granted within the timeframe specified.
8 Jul 2022

CHOY SHOK CHUN v. YU HON KEUNG

Citation

[2022] HKDC 671
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5575/2019

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the seepage came from the defendant's 6/F property. Repeated negative dye tests, the seasonal pattern of seepage inconsistent with continuous use of the 6/F bathroom, lack of convincing evidential link via Room A or slab thickness, and unresolved alternative explanations (external wall or higher floors) combined to defeat the plaintiff's case; both experts' competing opinions were not accepted as proving causation.
2 Mar 2022

POLYSOON INVESTMENTS LTD v. LAU MO KUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 211
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1549/2018

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance that the Lower Bathroom seepage was caused by the Upper Bathroom; multiple consistent negative dye tests and the court's preference for the defendants' expert evidence on interpretation of tests meant causation was not established; defendants acted reasonably; claim dismissed.
4 Dec 2020

LI KIT YIN v. MA SIM CHING

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1146
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ286/2020

The court found the plaintiff raised a legitimate and serious structural issue arising from substantial roof remodelling of a common part; under O.29 r.3 the requested intrusive tests were necessary and expedient to obtain full information, non-destructive alternatives were inadequate on expert evidence, the limited damage could be made good, and discovery of documents relating to the remodelling was relevant and ordered; accordingly the access and sampling order and directions for expert inspections and reports were granted and costs allocated as set out.
4 Sept 2020

VICTORY SUCCESS TRADING LTD v. CHEUNG KIN YING

Citation

[2020] HKDC 753
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ714/2020

On the pleadings the plaintiff established that water seepage from the defendant's property constituted a private nuisance and a breach of the DMC causing damage; in defendant's absence the court entered default judgment and granted injunctive and mandatory relief, permission for inspections at defendant's cost, assessment of damages and costs.
26 Nov 2019

LAM TING KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TEAMWELL CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1593
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ17/2016

On the balance of probabilities the water seepage to the plaintiffs' ground-floor premises originated from defects in the defendant's first-floor premises (defective waterproofing, embedded drainage and bathrooms of sub-divided flats, with Room C part of the source); the defendant knew or ought to have known and failed to take adequate remedial measures and regular maintenance and is therefore liable in negligence, in nuisance and for breach of the DMC; plaintiffs awarded injunction and damages totalling HK$164,260.60 plus interest and costs.
20 Nov 2019

LAM SUK YEE AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAM KIN MANSION

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1289
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/2019

The IO did not breach its duty: the applicable standard was one of reasonable management having regard to the DMC, the design, construction and intended semi-open use of the driveway and covered playground; some minor seepage was foreseeable and permissible for a semi-open playground and the plaintiffs failed to prove the IO's breach or causation of damage. The conversion into sealed domestic units was unlawful and breached clause 22(i) of the DMC; that unlawful conversion contributed to the damage and justified the IO's counterclaim and the mandatory injunction to remove unauthorised works.…
23 Apr 2008

HOLLYWOOD SHOPPING CENTRE OWNERS COMMITTEE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING WAH BUILDING MONGKOK KOWLOON

Citation

HOLLYWOOD SHOPPING CENTRE OWNERS COMMITTEE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING WAH BUILDING MONGKOK KOWLOON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1582/2007

Summary judgment was refused and the Plaintiff was granted leave to defend because there are triable issues of fact and law—notably whether defences of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence or laches apply and whether limitation operates—that cannot be resolved summarily in equity concerning common parts and injunctive relief; accordingly a trial is required and the Plaintiff may amend its pleadings to raise those defences.