Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Owners corporation duties

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2010

SUNBEAM INVESTMENTS LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF VILLA VENETO

Citation

SUNBEAM INVESTMENTS LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF VILLA VENETO
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM175/2009

The Tribunal held the Respondent breached its duties under s18(1) BMO and the DMC by failing to enforce the DMC and House Rules in relation to air-conditioners and roller shutters and by unreasonably delaying permanent rectification of external wall defects causing water seepage; accordingly injunctions were granted to compel enforcement and removal and an order for rectification and damages was made; the claim regarding balcony enclosures failed for insufficient proof that they constituted structural alterations or caused interference/damage to others.
27 Apr 2010

TANG KAM SHEUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF Y.Y. MANSION

Citation

TANG KAM SHEUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF Y.Y. MANSION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM309/2005

The IO breached its duties under Clauses 21(i) and 21(l) of the DMC and s.18(1)(c) of the BMO by failing to take reasonably necessary steps to remove an unlawful wall that caused continuing trespass and obstructed a common passageway; only the IO could enforce rights over common parts so the individual owners' claims against the neighbouring owner were not maintainable; a mandatory injunction ordering the IO to remove the part of the wall within the CP25 boundary within nine months was required to resolve the continuing trespass and obstruction, while damages were not awarded due to mitigatio…
22 Mar 2006

SHINE EMPIRE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SAN PO KONG MANSION AND OTHERS

Citation

SHINE EMPIRE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SAN PO KONG MANSION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV19/2005

The court held the Incorporated Owners failed to prove dispossession/adverse possession for the requisite 20 years because the acts relied on were trivial, equivocal or occurred after the relevant period, and the paper title owner had continued to exercise possession (regular inspections and rights under the DMC). Consequently Limitation Ordinance relief was not available to extinguish the paper owner’s title; the defence of acquiescence/estoppel failed; liability issues resolved in favour of the Plaintiff and assessment of monetary relief (unjust enrichment/licence fees and any set-offs) was…

Hong Kong Case Law

SUNBEAM INVESTMENTS LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF VILLA VENETO

TANG KAM SHEUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF Y.Y. MANSION

SHINE EMPIRE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SAN PO KONG MANSION AND OTHERS