2 May 2025
The Court refused permission to appeal because the Lands Tribunal judge lawfully and properly exercised his discretion, made no legal error or plainly wrong factual findings, and the applicant failed to show she would suffer substantial irreparable harm not compensable by damages such as to give the appeal a reasonable prospect of success.
9 Oct 2001
Tribunal found the management committees had failed to take positive and timely concrete steps to appraise and act on breaches of the DMC but were properly elected and represented the majority; the Applicant had acted imprudently by commencing 16 High Court actions during his short prior appointment and both the Applicant and Mr. Fung were unsuitable as administrators; therefore the application to dissolve the committee and appoint an administrator was dismissed.
26 Feb 1998
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a building scheme existed for Section Q so that restrictive covenants were mutually enforceable by sub-purchasers; although s.41(2) CPO should not be read as giving an original covenantee who has wholly parted with the benefited land a standalone right to enforce, the plaintiff as purchaser and owner of a flat within the scheme took the benefit as successor in title and was entitled to seek and obtain an injunction because there was no evidence of acquiescence, material change of character, or inequitable motive to deny relief.
13 Jan 1995
The High Court holds that the Building Management Ordinance and its Tenth Schedule do not, by express words or necessary implication, vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Lands Tribunal; accordingly the High Court retains jurisdiction to enforce a deed of mutual covenant and grants declaratory relief and an injunction restraining the defendants from operating a real estate agency in shops 17 and 18 because the defendants knowingly took the commercial risk of breaching the covenant and damages are inadequate.