Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Owners' contributions

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. YIU WING TAI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA75/2024

The specific provisions in clauses 4(f)(2)–(4) and the Third Schedule, which expressly provide zero deposits and zero monthly contributions for carpark owners and make further contributions proportional to monthly sums, control over the general provision in clause 4(f)(1); therefore carpark owners are not liable to pay security deposits or monthly management fees and the proposed appeal is unarguable, so leave to appeal is refused.
14 Sept 2022

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOUGH PLAZA v. STANDARD FINE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1674/2021

The court held that the DMC imposes a binding contractual obligation on owners to pay contributions approved by owners' resolutions and that alleged deficiencies in disclosure or absence of audited accounts do not excuse payment; defendants should have applied to the court under Schedule 6 para 1B for inspection if they genuinely sought documents; therefore judgment for the Incorporated Owners is warranted and enforcement of the registered charges is granted.
9 Nov 2021

RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD 對蘇世昌

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 70
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM126/2019

The resolutions of the special owners' meetings and the DMC obliged the respondent to pay the specified instalments; the manager adequately disclosed tender documents; the respondent unjustifiably refused and obstructed access causing delay and recoverable additional costs; interest at 1.5% per month and collection charges under the DMC are enforceable; consequently the applicant's monetary claims and a mandatory order for entry are justified and granted.
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. YEUNG CHUEN LING SAMUEL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. YEUNG CHUEN LING SAMUEL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM286/2014

The court held that the BMO s.14 and s.18(2)(fa) together with the DMC (Clause 4(f)) empowered the IO to carry out the approved works and that the resolutions were valid and binding; failure to provide further breakdowns or statutory letters did not excuse non‑payment; however the IO could not recover a 10% additional costs item that had not been approved at the owners' meeting. The respondents were ordered to pay their apportioned contributions (reduced to exclude the unapproved 10%), a 5% surcharge and a $150 collection fee as stipulated in the DMC; the surcharge and collection fee were not…
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. WONG WAI CHEUNG PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. WONG WAI CHEUNG PETER AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM285/2014

The Tribunal held that under BMO s.14 and s.18(2)(fa) and the DMC the incorporated owners were empowered to approve and carry out the Works and the resolutions were binding on all owners; respondents were liable to pay their apportioned contributions as resolved, and the 5% surcharge and $150 collection fee under the DMC are enforceable; however the unapproved 10% additional costs could not be levied and are disallowed.
27 Mar 2000

WONG KIN YIM v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD.

Citation

WONG KIN YIM v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM280/1999

The management company had express authority under Clause 7 of the DMC to carry out the renovation works as maintenance/repair/renovation rather than mere decoration; the questionnaires were consultative and not required as written resolutions under Clause 13(k); the respondent complied with the Seventh Schedule requirements for Stage X so it was entitled to collect the management fees and enforce interest and collection charges; therefore the application was dismissed and declarations in favour of the respondent were granted.
8 Sept 1999

The Incorporated Owners of Hopewell House v. Ng Hak Lun

Citation

The Incorporated Owners of Hopewell House v. Ng Hak Lun
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM74/1999

Clause 5(i)(b) of the Deed of Mutual Covenant, read in context, requires apportionment "in proportion to the units owned" meaning equal division per unit; therefore repair costs must be apportioned by number of units and not by undivided shares, and the respondent is liable for the per‑unit sum awarded.
1 Jun 1995

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BAYVIEW MANSION v. CHAN CHEUNG KIT MUI MARGARET

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BAYVIEW MANSION v. CHAN CHEUNG KIT MUI MARGARET
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA32/1994

The adjudicator materially erred by rejecting and failing to consider the photographs and Deed of Covenant; the evidence shows the works were decorative/upgrading not repairs authorized by the Deed of Covenant, and the Building Management Ordinance does not legitimately convert such improvements into binding resolutions on unwilling owners; accordingly the resolution lacked lawful authority and the claim for contribution failed.