Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of mutual covenant enforcement

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2025

梁偉珍對香港創毅控股有限公司/營運(香港創毅保安cpsc) 香港創毅物業服務顧問有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 778
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP391/2024

The claim was struck out because the venue at issue is part of private estate common parts governed by the Deed of Mutual Covenant which empowered the manager to require removal of the placard and exclude non-residents; the video evidence showed no unlawful eviction or intentional destructive interference and any contact with the placard was accidental and not trespass; the plaintiff therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the claims were frivolous and bound to fail; the holding company had no pleaded basis for liability as operator and its claim likewise disclosed no reasonable…
1 Nov 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FEDERAL CENTRE 對 DUDJOM BUDDHIST ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 90
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM60/2020

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to prove the potable and flushing sumps and pumps had been relocated unlawfully after building completion; key archival plumbing plans relied upon by respondent lacked approval or were ambiguous and did not displace the approved architectural and firefighting plans. The respondent, from about 2006, repeatedly imposed excessive conditions and obstructed access contrary to the deed and BMO s40; that obstruction materially delayed statutory maintenance and firefighting works. Counterclaims for unlawful alteration and for maintenance failures were dismisse…
14 Sept 2022

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOUGH PLAZA v. STANDARD FINE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1674/2021

The court held that the DMC imposes a binding contractual obligation on owners to pay contributions approved by owners' resolutions and that alleged deficiencies in disclosure or absence of audited accounts do not excuse payment; defendants should have applied to the court under Schedule 6 para 1B for inspection if they genuinely sought documents; therefore judgment for the Incorporated Owners is warranted and enforcement of the registered charges is granted.
9 Nov 2021

RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD 對蘇世昌

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 70
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM126/2019

The resolutions of the special owners' meetings and the DMC obliged the respondent to pay the specified instalments; the manager adequately disclosed tender documents; the respondent unjustifiably refused and obstructed access causing delay and recoverable additional costs; interest at 1.5% per month and collection charges under the DMC are enforceable; consequently the applicant's monetary claims and a mandatory order for entry are justified and granted.
12 Jul 2019

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF DUKE GARDEN v. FREE POINT TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 846
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3923/2016

The R Parking Spaces were validly created under the 1973 resolution; the Licence for R18 was a contractual, revocable licence subject to implied terms and the Rules; the defendant unreasonably breached the implied terms and DMC by persistently obstructive parking (not excused by the traffic pillars); proprietary estoppel and acquiescence were not established; selective prosecution is not an independent defence here; accordingly the plaintiff validly revoked the licence from 1 August 2016, is entitled to possession, mesne profits at HK$1,000 per month and a declaration that it must take reason…
30 Nov 2018

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAM LUK BUILDING v. POON MUI SANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1493
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1649/2016

Applying binding authorities, the court held that adverse possession of common parts is not precluded as a matter of law; on the facts D1 established continuous exclusive possession of Staircase 75 since 1973 with requisite acts of ownership and thus acquired possessory title extinguishing plaintiff's rights under the Limitation Ordinance; although D4's family occupied Staircase 81 historically, D4 personally only took exclusive possession from about 2006 and so did not meet statutory periods; independently, plaintiff and predecessors acquiesced in long‑standing occupation such that equitable…
11 Jun 2018

WONG WAI KWAN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF VISTA PARADISO

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 42
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM87/2018

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Building Management Ordinance permits proceedings for enforcement of contractual or proprietary rights in a DMC by way of damages alone and does not require any question of law; therefore a damages claim for breach of the DMC falls within the Lands Tribunal's jurisdiction and the respondent's summons to set aside the Notice of Application is dismissed.
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. YEUNG CHUEN LING SAMUEL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. YEUNG CHUEN LING SAMUEL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM286/2014

The court held that the BMO s.14 and s.18(2)(fa) together with the DMC (Clause 4(f)) empowered the IO to carry out the approved works and that the resolutions were valid and binding; failure to provide further breakdowns or statutory letters did not excuse non‑payment; however the IO could not recover a 10% additional costs item that had not been approved at the owners' meeting. The respondents were ordered to pay their apportioned contributions (reduced to exclude the unapproved 10%), a 5% surcharge and a $150 collection fee as stipulated in the DMC; the surcharge and collection fee were not…
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v LAI TZE BIN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v LAI TZE BIN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM289/2014

The Tribunal held that the owners corporation had statutory power under s.14 and s.18(2)(fa) BMO and contractual authority under the DMC to carry out the resolved works and to require contributions; the renovation/improvement distinction is irrelevant after the 1998 amendment to s.18(2). The respondents were liable for the approved contributions and for the 5% surcharge and $150 collection fee under the DMC, but the unapproved 10% additional contingency charge was not recoverable.
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM283/2014

The Tribunal held that s.18(2)(fa) of the Building Management Ordinance and Clause 4(f) of the DMC empower the IO to carry out the resolved works; the differentiation between renovation and improvement is otiose under the amended BMO; the IO failed to justify an unapproved 10% additional charge and therefore cannot recover it; respondents are nevertheless liable to pay their apportioned contributions as resolved and, having defaulted, are liable for the 5% surcharge and $150 collection fee per the DMC; costs ordered nisi to applicant.