Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of mutual covenant

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2026

TRILLION JOYFUL LTD v. SUNNIX INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 850
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1149/2022

The Vendor failed to show a good title before completion because the Rider only covered governmental enforcement risk and did not address the separate real risks arising from the Rear/Side Shop being formed from an external wall (common part) and possible breaches of Clause 8 of the DMC; the Vendor also failed to produce the original/certified copy of the Cockloft tenancy; those failures meant a real risk remained and the Vendor breached the PSPA repudiatorily, entitling the Purchaser to terminate, return of deposits, damages, equitable remedies and costs.
5 Feb 2026

SAM HEI TAI HING FOODS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAFORD INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1417/2019

The Deed of Mutual Covenant permits the IO to designate loading/unloading areas and to make house rules subject to reasonableness; the plaintiffs failed to establish estoppel by convention from alleged long usage; the IO's ban on forklifts, one‑way traffic rule and use of barriers were within the IO's reasonable management powers except for the additional bar installation which was targeted and unreasonable; both sides engaged in unreasonable conduct amounting to private nuisance and only nominal damages are appropriate; injunctive reliefs claimed by either side are denied and costs reserved…
26 Jan 2026

中紀投資有限公司 CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LIMITED v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASTLE PEAK ROAD INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING and STL COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 6
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV88/2025

Leave to appeal was granted because the Appeal Committee was satisfied that the posed question — whether and in what circumstances waiver or acquiescence can curtail or excuse the statutory duty under s.18(1)(c) BMO, apart from DMC breaches involving illegality — raises a question of requisite legal importance for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
24 Dec 2025

CHAN HO YAN v. WONG SHUNG YAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2079
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4552/2025

The summons for default judgment was dismissed because the mandatory injunction was drafted imprecisely and therefore unenforceable, the permanent injunction sought was wider than necessary and inappropriate under equitable principles, and there was a real risk that service was irregular as the defendant's flat was occupied by a tenant, making default judgment unsafe.
8 Dec 2025

富嘉大廈業主立案法團 v. CHAN YEE SHEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 73
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM53/2023

On the facts the Tribunal found respondents did not unreasonably refuse access; the canopies, house structure and clutter did not prevent erection of scaffolding; the IO failed to give reasonable notice and contributed to delay by imposing additional written undertakings and a litigious approach; the IO failed to prove that additional costs were caused by respondents and the claimed waterproofing cost had not been incurred — claim dismissed.
6 Nov 2025

CHUI MARJORIE CHE YING, CHUI TONI YIM v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS), BUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 21
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV104/2025

Because the Buildings Ordinance defines 'building' to include any part of a building, s28(3) must be read to permit the Building Authority to serve a repair order on the owner of the relevant part (the unit) served by the defective drain; the Court of Appeal's construction is correct, the applicants' alternative constructions are not reasonably arguable, and potential access issues are addressed by s22 and by DMC/easement rights, so the BA validly served the applicants and leave to appeal is refused.
16 Oct 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLDEN COURT v. FLYWAY INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 60
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM122/2020

The Cover Yard and associated staircases/walls are common parts under the DMC and BMO; the Staircase Wall opening and sanitary installations in the Cover Yard are unauthorised building works and breaches of the DMC and BMO; the IO did not have requisite knowledge to be estopped by acquiescence in respect of the Cover Yard alterations and the respondent cannot rely on acquiescence or waiver; mandatory injunctions to reinstate the common parts and removal of UBWs are granted and mesne profits for trespass are payable, to be quantified per directions.
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

DCMP1293/2023

Because the DMC and SDMC were executed contemporaneously and the SDMC expressly created term owners and contemplated assignments of 1/26th portions of the relevant undivided shares, clause 8(a)(i) of the DMC imposed direct liability on term owners for management fees; accordingly the Memoranda of Charge that purported to charge Holiday Resorts as sole owner of the full apartments were invalid and an order for sale was refused.
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

DCMP1292/2023

Because the DMC and SDMC were executed contemporaneously and the DMC’s language (including reference to the Developer’s Term and to owners of 'any portion thereof') only makes sense when read with the SDMC, the SDMC’s notional subdivision created term owners who are directly liable for their portion of management contributions; consequently the Memoranda of Charge purporting to charge Holiday Resorts as sole owner of the full undivided shares were invalid and an order for sale was refused.
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

DCMP1291/2023

The DMC and SDMC must be read together; the SDMC created notional subdivision of undivided shares into terms and the DMC imposed liability on owners of any portion of an undivided share, therefore term owners are directly liable for proportionate management contributions and the Memoranda of Charge purporting to charge Holiday Resorts as sole owner of each apartment were invalid; consequently the IO's applications for orders for sale were dismissed.