Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of mutual covenant breaches

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2024

LAI PUI SAN v. TAM YUK HA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1639
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5951/2023

Service was valid and defendant defaulted; the pleaded facts established that seepage originated from defendant's altered sub‑units and caused damage and nuisance, and defendant failed to comply with a statutory Nuisance Abatement Notice; on the pleadings the plaintiff was entitled to interlocutory judgment, a tailored mandatory order for repairs within a fixed period, an injunction restraining further leakage, damages to be assessed and costs summarily assessed at HK$70,000.
21 Aug 2024

CHAU WAI HUNG AND ANOTHER v. LAM TAK CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1740/2023

The Court found District Court jurisdiction can be established via DCO ss32 and 48 where there is an underlying claim within monetary limits and concluded s52 can be construed as jurisdiction-conferring in appropriate cases; on the facts plaintiffs proved on the balance of probabilities that seepage originated from defendants' terraces and that defendants were liable in breach of the DMC, nuisance and negligence; remedies awarded include specified monetary sums, interest, and a mandatory injunction ordering removal of defendants' elevated flooring and reconstruction of waterproofing within 30…
18 Nov 2021

中紀投資有限公司 v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1737
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2021

Joinder of the 9A owner was appropriate: s.16 BMO does not prevent an incorporated owners' use of the third party procedure or the court's joinder powers; absence of demonstrated prejudice and the need to avoid multiplicity and inconsistent findings justify joining STL Co Ltd as 2nd Respondent even at the appeal stage.
5 Nov 2021

PEARL BLUE INVESTMENT LTD v. FIE CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1266
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4934/2019

The defendant failed to prove it had reinstated the common areas to the manager's satisfaction or that any licence authorised the alterations; the 7 April 2017 undertaking was binding to stakehold funds for outstanding works; consequently the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for HK$623,100 together with interest and costs, and the stakeheld HK$300,000 may be released only after full payment of judgment, interest and costs.
30 Apr 2021

永利工業大廈業主立案法團對順隆置業有限公司

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 26
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM122/2019

The external wall facing Evans Street is a common part of the building; the respondent did not acquire ownership or exclusive use rights by reference to saleable area language or plans; the sign and stored goods breached the Deed of Mutual Covenant and the sign constituted unauthorised building works and a safety risk; acquiescence, waiver or estoppel did not bar the applicant's relief. Remedy: declaratory relief and mandatory removal with restoration and prohibition on future obstruction.
27 Aug 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MEI FOO SUN CHUEN - STAGE VI v. BILLION HAPPY INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 726
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP291/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: factual findings supported that the signboard extended beyond the shop boundary and altered the building’s appearance, acquiescence was not established, and the Presiding Officer’s post‑judgment remarks, though inappropriate, did not show bias affecting the trial; accordingly stay was refused and costs ordered.
18 Apr 2019

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BONHAM CREST v. LAI FELIX YIRID AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 29
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM78/2015

The Tribunal held that both the L-shaped Fence Wall and the Concrete Structure are unauthorized building works in breach of the DMC and s.34I(1)(a) BMO; the respondent, as current owner occupying and benefiting from the works, is solely responsible for demolition of the Fence Wall; demolition of the Concrete Structure must await re-routing of the embedded live gas pipe by the IO (a common facility) after which the respondent must demolish within three months; the nuisance interlocutory injunction was refused as the relevant discharge had ceased; the cable installation breached s.34I and the I…
6 Jun 2008

METRO CITY MANAGEMENT LTD v. TSUI FEE HUNG VINCENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

METRO CITY MANAGEMENT LTD v. TSUI FEE HUNG VINCENT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1893/2005

The Master refused all reviews: the Court of Appeal's variation related to the appellant's appeal (not automatically the cross-appeal), the appropriate apportionment for CACV 328/2005 is 60% to the appeal and 40% to the cross-appeal given the conduct and materials, counsel fees were not shown to be excessive so were not reduced, there was no jurisdiction or factual basis to deprive interest, and the Management Company was granted 28 days to adduce evidence on the indemnity principle; each party to bear its own costs of the reviews (order nisi).