Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of mutual covenants

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2025

TOLLEMACHE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. RAYMOND LUN KWOK PAO also known as PAO LUN KWOK RAYMOND

Citation

[2025] HKCA 750
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP38/2025

The renewed application for leave to appeal is refused because the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's findings that the defendant did not owe an affirmative maintenance duty, that foreseeability of the specific water seepage was not established, and that the defendant acted reasonably to abate the seepage were open to him and adequately supported by the evidence, so no arguable error of law or fact justified granting leave.
11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. WONG CHUN KWUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA69/2024

The DMC construed as a whole shows the Third Schedule and clauses 4(f)(2)–(4) specifically exclude carpark owners from paying security deposits and monthly management fees; clause 4(f)(1) is a general provision and must yield to the specific provisions; therefore the Deputy Adjudicator correctly dismissed the claims and the application for leave to appeal is unarguable and refused.
11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. WONG YAU ON

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA70/2024

The Third Schedule together with clauses 4(f)(2)–(4) expressly exclude carpark owners from paying security deposits and monthly contributions; construing the DMC as a whole and giving priority to specific provisions, carpark owners are not liable to pay management contributions, and the appellant failed to show an arguable appeal with a reasonable prospect of success, so leave to appeal was dismissed.
11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. NGAI CHI HO

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA71/2024

The DMC construed holistically shows the Third Schedule and clauses 4(f)(2)-(4) specifically exclude carpark owners from paying security deposits and monthly contributions; therefore clause 4(f)(1) does not impose liability on carpark owners and the claimant's proposed appeal is unarguable, so leave to appeal is dismissed.
11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. YIU WING TAI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA75/2024

The specific provisions in clauses 4(f)(2)–(4) and the Third Schedule, which expressly provide zero deposits and zero monthly contributions for carpark owners and make further contributions proportional to monthly sums, control over the general provision in clause 4(f)(1); therefore carpark owners are not liable to pay security deposits or monthly management fees and the proposed appeal is unarguable, so leave to appeal is refused.
11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. KWAN WUI CHE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA72/2024

The specific provisions in clauses 4(f)(2)-(4) and the Third Schedule, which expressly require no deposits or monthly management fees from carpark owners and tie further contributions to those who pay monthly sums, must be given effect; consequently carpark owners are not liable to pay contributions under clause 4(f)(1) and the appellant's proposed appeal was unarguable and without reasonable prospect of success, so leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 Jul 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 589
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV106/2023

The court held the 2002 Agreement did not bear an implied term permitting the Incorporated Owners to unilaterally terminate the arrangement at will by reasonable notice; on proper construction termination is permitted only by reasonable notice where a legitimate need to restore the original configuration exists; the IO's 2018 notice was therefore ineffective to terminate the Agreement and the Lands Tribunal's orders for demolition/reinstatement were set aside, with the IO's application dismissed (the Tribunal's dismissal of Join Profit's counterclaim was retained).
3 Jul 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 589
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP189/2023

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal: the 2002 Agreement did not imply a unilateral right for the Incorporated Owners to terminate at will by reasonable notice. On proper construction an implied right to terminate exists only where a party has a legitimate need to restore the original configuration; the IO's blanket six-month termination notice was ineffective to terminate the Agreement and the Lands Tribunal order for reinstatement is set aside and the IO's application dismissed (save that the Tribunal's dismissal of Join Profit's counterclaim is retained).
16 Feb 2024

張靜嫦對尚悅管理有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 13
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM113/2020

Applicant's relief was dismissed because respondent had taken reasonable and contractually permitted steps (including commissioning a qualified plumber whose report found no ongoing defect), the contested management choices fell within the manager's discretion and reasonable options under the Deed (so court will not intervene), the clubhouse is a common area under the Deed and clause 39 applies, and clause 12(a) does not entitle owners to determine the manager's fee amount by resolution.
3 Aug 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCA 930
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP351/2022

The Court held the Judge did not err in law or in the exercise of case management discretion: the disputed issues on access and safety (Issues 2,4,5) were peripheral to the primary dispute about whether areas are common parts and could be resolved without the proposed expert evidence; the respondents failed to demonstrate relevance or necessity of the proposed expert evidence; appointment of a single joint expert on the narrow reformulated Issue 1 was appropriate; the renewed application for leave to appeal was not reasonably arguable and was refused.