Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lands tribunal jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2021

FRANCES FONG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HAMBURG VILLA

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 188
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCZZ147/2021

The ex-parte application was dismissed as an abuse of the duty judge system because there was no urgency or secrecy (seven years of prior litigation and defendant admitted liability in 2016), the Lands Tribunal was the proper forum to seek injunctive relief, and the written submissions failed to justify a mandatory injunction; accordingly the application was wholly unmeritorious and costs were ordered against counsel and solicitors personally.
7 Mar 2018

啟德花園(彩虹道)業主立案法團對 WOO TAK YAN 及另一人

Citation

[2018] HKCA 134
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP54/2017

The Court refused permission to appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law in the Lands Tribunal's decisions or a reasonable prospect of success; the appellant merely re‑argued factual and credibility complaints previously rejected and presented no new legal point warranting appellate hearing. Costs were awarded to the applicant and the Court exercised its power under the High Court Rules to prohibit requests for an oral hearing to revisit the decision.
27 Sept 2017

CHAN GLORIA v. LAM FUK HOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN GLORIA v. LAM FUK HOI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4405/2015

Strike-out application dismissed. The court held res judicata did not apply because the Lands Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff's claims for declaration and damages in the earlier LDPE 888/2015; the misrepresentation and implied-term claims were not plainly unsustainable and required full trial and evidence, so they could not be struck out on summary application.
2 Aug 2012

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MANSION v. HEART CUISINE AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MANSION v. HEART CUISINE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV235/2011

Where a part of a building is a common part governed by the DMC and BMO, covenants attached to that common part run with the land and bind occupiers including adverse possessors; accordingly adverse possession and Limitation Ordinance defences do not defeat enforcement by the incorporated owners in the Lands Tribunal; the Tribunal had jurisdiction and an injunction to restore and restrain was appropriate; the respondents failed to prove adverse possession or justify delay; appeal dismissed.
25 Aug 2011

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ONE BEACON HILL v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ONE BEACON HILL v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2562/2009

BMO s16 must be construed to allow an incorporated owners corporation to sue to enforce contractual rights relating to the common parts, including rights originally held by some owners, and such rights and liabilities (including pre-incorporation ones) vest in the corporation; BMO s18(2)(g) is to be read liberally as ancillary to s16; jurisdictional and factual issues on whether defects affect common parts are for trial.
22 Sept 2008

FULLY HK HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. TREASURE PROFIT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FULLY HK HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. TREASURE PROFIT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV263/2008

The application for a stay was dismissed because the impugned order is a routine case management/discovery measure within the Lands Tribunal's remit, the proposed appeal lacked merit (appeals from the Lands Tribunal are limited to points of law), and there was no justification to delay the Lands Tribunal hearing; thus no stay should be granted.
17 Oct 2002

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE-IN-COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Citation

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE-IN-COUNCIL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL98/2002

Leave to apply for judicial review was set aside because the applicant identified no reviewable administrative decision (Director's correspondence were negotiation assertions), the legislature vested exclusive primary jurisdiction over compensation disputes in the Lands Tribunal which is competent to decide any constitutional issues, and the High Court will not exercise anticipatory jurisdiction to pre-empt a possible future tribunal ruling; accordingly no prima facie case for supervisory relief was shown.
16 Apr 2002

WONG HING CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. WAH E INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG HING CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. WAH E INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV908/2001

Section 45(1) and the Tenth Schedule of the Building Management Ordinance do not vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Lands Tribunal for all matters listed; exclusive jurisdiction arises only where the right or remedy is created solely by the Ordinance. The District Court (and superior courts) retain jurisdiction over nuisance and many property disputes unless the statutory scheme necessarily ousts court jurisdiction. The judge below erred in law in holding blanket exclusivity; the interlocutory injunction application was wrongly brought and costs should follow, but the discontinuance of the ma…
23 Sept 1997

CHOY YEE CHUN v. BOND STAR DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

CHOY YEE CHUN v. BOND STAR DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV225/1996

The Tribunal judge reasonably found, on the evidence, that the appellant deliberately fabricated a bogus adverse possession defence and engaged in oppressive and vexatious conduct to extract compensation; such conduct falls within the exceptional circumstances justifying an indemnity costs award; s.68B does not preclude awarding indemnity costs where conduct is frivolous or vexatious; the Court of Appeal will not disturb the discretionary order absent misdirection, therefore the indemnity costs order is upheld.
25 Jun 1996

WING TUNG YICK INVESTMENT CO. LTD. and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

WING TUNG YICK INVESTMENT CO. LTD. and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2557/1995

The court held that the prior declaration did not constitute a money judgment attracting interest under the Supreme Court Ordinance; interest on statutory compensation is payable only under s.17(3A) of the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance in the circumstances specified therein (Lands Tribunal determination or s.4A agreement); absent those events no statutory interest is payable and an alternative claim for damages is misconceived because the CLRO provides the exclusive remedy for delayed payment.