Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of mutual covenant interpretation

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH v. HOLIDAY RESORTS (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1572
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1290/2023

The court held the DMC and the contemporaneous SDMC must be read together; the SDMC created notional term subdivisions and contemplated owners of portions of undivided shares who are directly liable for contributions under clause 8(a)(i); therefore the Memoranda of Charge purporting to charge Holiday Resorts as sole owner of the five apartments were invalid and an order for sale could not be granted; the actions were dismissed and the charges must be removed.
24 Jul 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HUNG WAI BUILDING v. SUNNY ELEGANT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 685
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP164/2024

Leave refused because respondents' grounds were re‑running factual arguments rejected by the Judge and had no reasonable prospect of success; the Judge properly construed the DMC and, on evidence of design, layout and access, correctly found the Disputed Areas are common parts usable by residential owners; Clause A(a) does not create a residential/commercial distinction restricting easement rights to a particular unit; therefore the intended appeal is not arguable.
9 May 2025

CHAN LAI CHUN MARIA v. STEADYPROFIT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 24
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM17/2024

The Tribunal held that the Meeting Provisions (clause 9 and the Fifth Schedule) are enforceable against current owners under s41(3) CPO and that changing the building name is a matter "concerning the said premises" within those provisions; accordingly a majority resolution validly passed in accordance with the DMC binds all owners and the building may be renamed without unanimous consent. Declaratory relief was appropriate and granted.
9 Apr 2025

PACIFIC RISING LTD v. NANAN INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1467
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP402/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the principal issues were either abandoned at the hearing or unsupported by evidence, the alleged need for cross-examination and discovery was not substantiated or pursued, and the high hurdle for appellate intervention in case management decisions was not met.
3 Mar 2025

交通城大廈業主立案法團 v. PAKATOWER LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 7
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM152/2020

The Tribunal held that the DMC and First Assignment, read contextually, reserved exclusive occupation rights in the Others Unit to the registered owner; the Housing Premises (including the Semi-circle Area and Disputed Room) are part of the Others Unit and not Common Areas/Common Facilities such that IO has no free-standing right of exclusive occupation beyond the Manager's right of access under clause 1(d); IO must deliver vacant possession within six months; mesne profits assessed by reference to the last tenancy (monthly HK$3,307 from 1 May 2015, adjusted annually by the Private Flatted Fa…
3 Mar 2025

交通城大廈業主立案法團 v. PAKATOWER LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 7
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM151/2020

The Tribunal held that the Others Unit (including the housing/utility premises and the semi-circle area with the concrete tank room) are privately owned units under the DMC and Pakatower is entitled to exclusive use, occupation and enjoyment of the Disputed Premises; IO does not hold a proprietary exclusive occupation right but only the Manager's right of access under clause 1(d); IO must deliver vacant possession within six months (allowing common facilities in existence at execution of the DMC to remain), pay mesne profits as assessed, IO's counterclaims for management fees and repair contr…
3 Mar 2025

PAKATOWER LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TRANSPORT CITY BUILDING

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 7
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM75/2019

The Tribunal held that the Housing Premises (including the Disputed Semi-circle Area and internal Disputed Room) form part of the Others Unit and are privately held by Pakatower; IO did not obtain exclusive occupation rights under the DMC but only the Manager's right of access; IO must deliver vacant possession within six months (subject to retention of Common Facilities that existed at DMC execution); IO must pay mesne profits calculated at HK$3,307 per month (adjusted annually by the Private Flatted Factories index) from 1 May 2015 until delivery and arrears; IO's counterclaims for outstand…
10 Jan 2025

LEE LAM HOI v. 京寶大廈業主立案法團

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 1
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM83/2022

The Tribunal found no arguable error of law: Clause 4(f)'s reference to "units" is to the fixed 76 units in the First Schedule; contributions to Clause 4(f) Expenses are apportioned by those fixed units and, where a unit has been subdivided, each owner's share is fixed by their undivided share under section 22(2) BMO. The Respondent's challenge had no reasonable prospect of success; leave to appeal was refused and costs ordered against the Respondent.
29 Jul 2024

NG CHOI SAU YUM aka CHOI SAU YUM v. KWONG MAN POR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1213
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4200/2020

The 3rd defendant (Incorporated Owners) is not liable for the plaintiff's claims. The court found water ingress into 3A bathroom and kitchen was caused by screws and a rusted L-shaped steel angle previously installed by the plaintiff, breaking the external wall integrity and falling within the DMC Clause 6 proviso (plaintiff liable for repairs). Water leakage affecting 3B bathroom and living room was attributable to defective drainage/raised floor and subdivided works in 4B (owner above), not the external wall or the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff therefore failed to establish liability of the…
15 Dec 2023

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF POTEK HOUSE v. KA YE CATERING MANAGEMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 74
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM197/2021

Applicant entitled to costs of the Application and of the Counterclaim against the 2nd respondent because the applicant substantially obtained the relief sought and the 2nd respondent failed to show good reason to depart from the usual rule on discontinuance; costs awarded on solicitor-and-own-client basis and with certificate for counsel to be taxed on District Court scale if not agreed.