Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

House rules

Legal area

Court

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…
27 Aug 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MEI FOO SUN CHUEN - STAGE VI v. BILLION HAPPY INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 726
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP291/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: factual findings supported that the signboard extended beyond the shop boundary and altered the building’s appearance, acquiescence was not established, and the Presiding Officer’s post‑judgment remarks, though inappropriate, did not show bias affecting the trial; accordingly stay was refused and costs ordered.
19 Dec 2013

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YUEN LONG TIN SHING COURT v. WONG MAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YUEN LONG TIN SHING COURT v. WONG MAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM217/2013

The DMC and its House Rules (clause 15(a)) legally bound the respondents; the evidence proved repeated dog-barking constituting a breach and nuisance; absent any defence, the court granted a mandatory injunction to remove the dogs, a prohibitory injunction against keeping dogs in the flat, awarded costs to the applicant and attached a penal notice to enforce compliance.
7 Aug 2013

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. LEUNG MAY CHUN ALISON ALIANCE

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. LEUNG MAY CHUN ALISON ALIANCE<br>
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1381/2011

Both applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the proposed grounds did not show a reasonable prospect of success nor any other interest of justice requiring appeal; the court upheld its findings that IO was liable for interference in the 1st and 2nd Periods but defendant proved no quantifiable loss and was therefore awarded nominal damages of HKD 10 for each period; IO was not liable for the 3rd Period; clause 21 of the DMC read with s16 BMO authorized the IO to make House Rules and the Security and Registration Systems did not contradict the DMC.
20 Sept 2011

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HANG TSUI COURT v. HO FU AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HANG TSUI COURT v. HO FU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV143/2010

The Third Schedule containing the House Rules is part of the DMC; para. (15)(a) prohibiting dogs is reconcilable with clause 1(b) because exclusive occupation is subject to specific house rules in the DMC, therefore para. (15)(a) is valid and binding and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Sept 2008

TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1704/2007

Rule 3 of the House Rules (prohibiting the keeping of dogs in the estate including private units) was invalid because the manager exceeded the authority granted by the registered Stage VII DMC: the manager's power to make rules was limited to rules relating to common parts and access areas and could not validly prohibit conduct within owners' units; Rule 3 also conflicted with Clauses 1, 3(1) and 3(2) of the DMC guaranteeing exclusive use and access rights; non-registration of the House Rules did not by itself render them void because the registered DMC referred to House Rules and owners are…
8 Sept 2004

CHUNG KWOK HUNG v. CAYLEY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

CHUNG KWOK HUNG v. CAYLEY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM72/2004

The Tribunal held that the flue protrusion did not breach Clause 17 because the aperture and minimal protrusion were part of the original building design and necessary for safe functioning; the mosaic tile change claim failed for lack of proof and because the wall was inside the balcony (not external); the air‑conditioner support brackets did breach Clauses 17 and 18 and an injunction to remove them was granted; the Respondent was not entitled to retain the HK$20,000 deposit without accounting or rectifying and must return it with interest.
14 Oct 1977

LIM HONG-LIANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LIM HONG-LIANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC916/1977

The magistrate was correct to conclude that where food and refreshment are deliberately organized as part of the gaming and provided from a common fund, that constitutes a benefit in kind amounting to 'private gain' under section 3(2) of the Gambling Ordinance 1977, rendering the gaming unlawful and the appellants' convictions under section 5(a) valid.
5 Jul 1973

GOODYEAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. LANA WONG

Citation

GOODYEAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. LANA WONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1790/1972

Defendant, being bound by the Deed of Mutual Covenant and House Rule 6, altered the exterior appearance by enclosing the balcony and replacing the original railing without the required written approval; Plaintiff retained authority to enforce the Deed; therefore the court must order removal of the unauthorised structure and restoration to the original appearance and award costs to the Plaintiff.