Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Interpretation of conveyance

  • 11 Jun 2020

    黎偉雄 對 信和物業管理有限公司

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 448
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV222/2019

    The Court held the PPW is an Estate Common Area under the DMC because (i) the definitions in the DMC and the Government Grant required common treatment of passageways unless expressly designated for exclusive use, (ii) the physical layout and intended use at the date of the DMC indicated the PPW served both residential and commercial users, (iii) shares and rights in respect of Common Areas were allocated and assigned to the Manager and therefore the PPW could not form part of Great Land's exclusive Commercial Accommodation, and (iv) a plan made after the DMC (L8 Plan) cannot conclusively det…

  • 18 May 2009

    THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PARC REGAL v. PIZZICATO LTD

    Citation
    THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PARC REGAL v. PIZZICATO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1587/2006

    The court held that the conveyances and definition of common parts were not shown to be ambiguous such that subsequent conduct would be admissible to interpret them; interrogatories 1 and 2, which sought evidence of subsequent use, were therefore irrelevant and must be withdrawn; interrogatory 3, seeking documents to determine what was conveyed (whether flat roofs were assigned), was relevant and must be answered by the deadlines ordered; the supplemental witness statement was inadmissible and refused; costs were ordered as set out.

  • 6 Mar 2002

    PROSPEROUS TONE LTD. v. PEARL FAME DEVELOPMENT LTD.

    Citation
    PROSPEROUS TONE LTD. v. PEARL FAME DEVELOPMENT LTD.
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV1128/2001

    The Court of Appeal held the judge below was wrong to infer the defendant had a right to use 24 tonne vehicles based on the 1960 lease grant and post‑1970s design of retaining works; the right of way did not extend to 24 tonne vehicles given the physical characteristics and lack of evidence of such historical use, and the defendant's use of 24 tonne lorries constituted excessive user and trespass/breach where they damaged the access ramp and railings. The roadway surface and kerb are "structures" under the Deed of Undertaking, so placing steel plates and injecting epoxy constituted trespass a…