Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of mutual covenant obligations

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2025

中紀投資有限公司 v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 45
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM256/2018

On the evidence and the Tribunal’s prior trial findings, FI and SG (through their authorized representatives Mao and Mok) effectively controlled the management committee and IO, caused and perpetuated the litigation for their benefit, and were responsible for serious improprieties (false/dishonest evidence and documents). Given the close connection to the subject UBWs and the causal link to the costs incurred, it is in the interests of justice to exercise the discretion under s.12(2) LTO to order FI and SG to pay the Applicant’s costs personally.
10 Jun 2025

CHEUNG SAU FONG v. HO CHI SAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 957
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5240/2021

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was continuing water leakage after the Defendant's remedial works; the Defendant had taken reasonable and timely steps (repairs in 2021 and comprehensive remedial works in 2023) and the Plaintiff's refusal to allow inspection undermined proof of ongoing seepage; in equity there were no special circumstances to grant permanent or mandatory injunctions; claim dismissed and Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant's costs (certificate for counsel).
3 Mar 2023

LAU SAU PING及另一人對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAM SHING BUILDING

Citation

[2023] HKDC 330
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ939/2019

On the balance of probabilities plaintiffs proved that seepage causing damage to the back shop originated from the building common platform; the incorporated owners, as managers of common parts under the deed of mutual covenant and Building Management Ordinance, knew of the problem and failed to take reasonable remedial steps and thereby breached statutory and contractual duties and committed nuisance/negligence; appropriate relief is payment of reasonable restoration costs and a mandatory injunction ordering repairs within 42 days; plaintiffs' claim for overall rental loss failed for lack of…
14 Sept 2022

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOUGH PLAZA v. WONG CHING KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1673/2021

The IO is entitled to judgment to enforce the registered charges for unpaid contributions because the DMC creates an independent contractual obligation to pay contributions approved at owners' meetings; alleged failures of disclosure or lack of audited accounts do not suspend that obligation and the proper remedy for inspection is an application to court under Schedule 6 BMO, which the defendants did not pursue; therefore withholding payment was unjustified.
3 Aug 2022

ATLANTIC LINK LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YEN YING BUILDING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 825
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1306/2018

The court accepted the pleaded admissions that D2 had assumed management and maintenance duties for T2 and, on the balance of probabilities, accepted the joint expert testing and factual evidence that T2, T3 and the external wall were sources of water seepage into 2I; D1 and D2 (and the relevant 2/F and 3/F owners under the DMC/Sub-DMC) failed to take proper and timely remedial steps after notice of the problem and thus were liable; injunctions were ordered to require responsible owners to carry out remedial works; damages of HKD 43,000 were awarded to the plaintiff and apportioned equally be…
12 Nov 2020

TJON YOSE MANUEL SIE FO AND ANOTHER v. NGO OTIN

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1031
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3990/2019

The court was satisfied by the affirmations that the Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim were validly served and that no Defence had been filed; the pleaded facts and expert report established that water seepage originated from the defendant's exposed flat roof causing nuisance/negligence and breach of the DMC; accordingly interlocutory judgment on liability was entered against the defendant, damages were reserved for assessment, a mandatory injunction to carry out repairs was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
28 Jun 2019

LI KUEN KWAI JAY AND ANOTHER v. LOK CHUN CHEONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 677
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1922/2016

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that seepage originated from defendants' flat 6E because multiple independent and properly conducted Fluorescent Dye Tests over several years were negative and the competing EMM and MLD evidence was inconclusive or liable to false positives; therefore the action fails and must be dismissed.
7 May 2019

SIN CHAN KAM v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 32
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM43/2016

Tribunal found on balance that the pipe alterations (other than the Altered Vent Pipe and New Pipe 3 U-trap) were carried out with the knowledge and consent of the applicant's agent (Hang Seng) and that the applicant acquiesced for an extended period so equitable relief for demolition/reinstatement was barred; the respondent was liable for water seepage arising from defective common parts and was ordered to repair those common parts and reinstate affected premises within a reasonable time (3 months); the applicant's claim for rental damages was dismissed for failure to prove causation and fai…
19 Jan 2018

李來英對馮秋杭

Citation

[2018] HKDC 63
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3010/2015

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence over the defendant's: testing and reports established that leakage into 8N arose from failure of 9N's toilet waterproofing and associated pipes, the defendant knew or ought to have known and failed to take reasonable remedial action; accordingly the defendant was liable in negligence and nuisance and breached covenantual obligations. An injunction was refused because the defendant had sold the unit and could not effectively comply. Damages were assessed at HK$327,316.20 with interest and costs as ordered.
9 Jul 2010

TECH FOCUS LTD v. AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TECH FOCUS LTD v. AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5777/2006

The court found the defendants in breach by unreasonably delaying compliance with the consent order; "forthwith" required prompt commissioning and carrying out of the repair and defendants could not rely on internal management or procedural inconveniences that could have been addressed before the consent order; credible expert evidence established defective roof works as the cause of seepage; plaintiff entitled to loss of rent of HKD 340,600 for the 21-month period attributable to defendants' delay.