Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Management fees recovery

Legal area

Court

2 May 2024

北角中心大廈業主立案法團 v. 威邦物業管理服務有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 36
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM100/2023

Wellpoint is not a member of the class of Plaza Owners, is not liable under the DMC to IO, and the Sub-DMC/Service Agreements do not confer an unfettered power or duty to be sued as representative for individual owners in respect of personal contractual liabilities; there is a real risk of conflict of interest and absence of authorisation and funding from owners; accordingly the ANOA discloses no reasonable cause of action against Wellpoint and must be struck out, the Representative Summons is dismissed and the action is dismissed.
27 May 2021

SAM WOO MARINE WORKS LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PO HANG BUILDING

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 35
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM252/2014

The Tribunal adopted the prior construction that Clauses 3(i) and 3(j) relate to total monthly payments by all owners and that the obligation to contribute is collective; Sam Woo's construction requiring strict class-level apportionment and insufficiency as a perpetual precondition was rejected as inconsistent with the DMC and impracticable; prior decision DCCJ 1271/2011 is applicable and the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
6 Jun 2017

采建有限公司對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人

Citation

采建有限公司對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA15/2017

The tribunal’s findings that the claimant provided management services during the relevant period, that the defendants accepted and benefited from those services without payment, and that the defendants failed to establish a change of position or to disprove the claimant’s accounts justified recovery on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract grounds; the rehearing did not misapply the law nor contravene the earlier High Court directions, so leave to appeal is refused.
27 Jun 2008

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Citation

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV27/2008

The Court held that the areas marked VOID adjacent to original car parks 2,3 and 4 are common parts for purposes of the DMC and land grant; therefore the pipe did not trespass on the plaintiff's exclusive property and the trespass/loss of rental claim fails; the plaintiff's erection of the enclosing wall and redesignation of VOID areas lacked required consents (co‑owners and land‑grant consent) and interfered with common facilities, justifying a mandatory injunction to demolish the wall and reinstate the original car parks; the first defendant's management fees claim was supported by the stat…
20 Dec 2007

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Citation

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8805/1993

The court held that the impugned section of the pipe was installed in the VOID areas which are common roadways/driveways and not within the airspace reserved to Wing Ming under the DMC; Wing Ming could not unilaterally re‑designate common VOID areas as its car parking spaces without statutory permission; Building Authority approval did not amount to consent to alter the approved car park layout; accordingly there was no trespass or DMC breach by the Incorporated Owners or New Gas, Wing Ming’s damages claim failed, the Incorporated Owners’ BMO certificate established outstanding management fee…
17 Jun 2002

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. KING DOH RESTAURANT LTD.

Citation

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. KING DOH RESTAURANT LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ20096/2001

Interlocutory judgment granted for plaintiff for all management expenses incurred on or before the Termination Date (9 December 1999) with damages to be assessed; plaintiff waived claims for management expenses after Termination Date; defendants given unconditional leave to defend claims for ferry service charges incurred after the Termination Date because they raised an arguable defence that the ferry contract may have been unreasonable and the plaintiff in breach of duty; costs reserved.
18 May 2001

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. CHONG LAP FU GEORGE AND OTHERS

Citation

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. CHONG LAP FU GEORGE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA20857/1998

The court inferred from consistent audited accounts and uncontested evidence of group advances that the plaintiff had funded management deficits and therefore could recover the claimed sums as reimbursements (and its own unpaid remuneration) rather than merely as agent-collection for owners; the DMC expressly permitted recovery of specified collection charges and registration expenses; given defendants' conduct and breach of the settlement, indemnity costs were justified; interest awarded as specified in the judgment.
18 May 2001

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. GRANDCORP LTD.

Citation

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. GRANDCORP LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17643/1998

On the evidence the plaintiff was running sustained deficits and received advances from the holding company and related entities which were used to pay management and ferry expenses; therefore the sums claimed represent reimbursement to the plaintiff (not funds of owners) and are recoverable; the contract (DMC) authorises a $300 collection charge and registration expenses as recoverable items and interest and indemnity costs are appropriate in the circumstances, so judgment for the plaintiff is entered with specified interest and indemnity costs.
18 May 2001

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. CHAN MEI LING

Citation

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. CHAN MEI LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9502/2000

Judge found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff was running at a long‑term deficit and Holding and related companies had advanced funds (including a specific circa HKD 1,600,000 advance) to keep services running; therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sums claimed as reimbursement (not merely as agent for owners). The contractually stipulated collection charge of HKD300 and the expenses of registering charges were recoverable. Given defendants' conduct (collecting fees contrary to settlement and having weak defences) indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff. I…
18 May 2001

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH

Citation

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4978/1998

The court found on the balance of the uncontradicted evidence (including management accounts and auditors' reports) that the plaintiff, through advances from its holding company and related entities, had funded persistent deficits in management and ferry operations; therefore the sums claimed were recoverable by the plaintiff as reimbursement or as amounts due to it, including reasonable collection charges and registration expenses under the DMC; indemnity costs were appropriate because the IO acted contrary to an earlier settlement and defendants had no real defence once interlocutory relief…