Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of covenants

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2015

THE INCORPORATED OWNER OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE v. HONG KONG QUALITY BRANDS ALLIANCE LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNER OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE v. HONG KONG QUALITY BRANDS ALLIANCE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA947/2014

Summary judgment was inappropriate because the legal position on whether equitable defences can be asserted against Incorporated Owners enforcing a DMC is not settled by existing authorities; the issue should be resolved by the Court of Appeal, and accordingly leave to appeal is granted with costs in the appeal.
20 Feb 2012

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MARINA COVE v. CHU KAM TAI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MARINA COVE v. CHU KAM TAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2141/2011

The respondents had no reasonable prospect of success because the judge's factual finding that the gate prevented access and that the respondents treated the structures as their own was justified by admissions and evidence; negative covenants run with the land and bind current owners so Buxhaum (about positive covenants) did not excuse them; therefore leave to appeal (and extension of time) was refused and costs were awarded to the applicant.
5 Aug 2010

李延康及另其他人 v. 韻濤居業主立案法團及另一人

Citation

李延康及另其他人 v. 韻濤居業主立案法團及另一人
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4861/2008

Clause 19 of the DMC relates to land and therefore binds owners under s.41 Cap.219; Clause 4.1 (exclusive possession) is subject to express covenants in the DMC and is not overridden; the 2007 Resolution was a procedural scheme and did not amount to waiver, permission or acknowledgement that owners may keep dogs on conditions; the Manager's discretion to grant consent carries an implied limitation that it not be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably, but review is limited to cases where the refusal is patently absurd or ridiculous; on the facts the Defendants reasonably refused…
14 Dec 1998

SKY HEART LTD. v. LEE HYSAN ESTATE CO. LTD.

Citation

SKY HEART LTD. v. LEE HYSAN ESTATE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/1998

The Court held that a building scheme existed for Section Q such that the restrictive covenants created reciprocal equitable rights enforceable inter se; the respondent, as the owner of Flat 10 within the scheme, had a proprietary interest entitling it to equitable relief and an injunction to restrain the appellant from breaching the covenants; the appeal was dismissed.
28 Mar 1995

FAIRFAX LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

FAIRFAX LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP794/1994

The court refused the plaintiff's declaration because it found no legal waiver or acquiescence by the Crown: knowledge of past breaches and permitting redevelopment elsewhere did not legally extinguish the restrictive covenant and it would not be unconscionable to enforce it on the plaintiff's site.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNER OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE v. HONG KONG QUALITY BRANDS ALLIANCE LTD

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MARINA COVE v. CHU KAM TAI AND OTHERS

李延康及另其他人 v. 韻濤居業主立案法團及另一人

SKY HEART LTD. v. LEE HYSAN ESTATE CO. LTD.

FAIRFAX LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL