13 Nov 2024
FUTURE DRAGON LTD v. FU LAM INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 2720
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP401/2023
On the evidence filed there were no genuine, substantial factual disputes calling for viva voce evidence or conversion to a writ: the contested budget items were shown to be communal and properly included or at least the defendants offered no evidential basis to the contrary; the alleged rental income issue was contradicted by the plaintiffs' evidence that the pedestrian bridge is not part of the Joylane Arcade common areas; and the purported ground/first floor discrepancy resulted from comparing different budgets. Accordingly conversion was refused and the summonses dismissed.