Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Owners incorporation

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2017

MILLION STARS TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CENTURY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND OTHERS

Citation

MILLION STARS TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CENTURY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM24/2016

The Tribunal held that the 2015 AGM produced a valid 9‑member management committee despite a successful candidate (R10) declining appointment after votes were cast (treated as a resignation after appointment); corporate representatives who participated were not excluded where the owners' incorporation and management company acted in a consistent manner that created a common assumption (estoppel by convention); vacancies falling below the statutory thresholds do not invalidate a committee and may be filled under Sch 2; factual findings supported that the 12th MC had not been lawfully displaced…
5 Aug 2015

OWNERS HOLDING 10.43 OF UNDIVIDED SHARES OF MAYFAIR GARDENS AS PER ANNEXED v. KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

OWNERS HOLDING 10.43 OF UNDIVIDED SHARES OF MAYFAIR GARDENS AS PER ANNEXED v. KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM269/2014

The tribunal found on the evidence that the correct total undivided shares for Mayfair Gardens is 65,000 and that the applicants represent 6,782 shares (10.43%), meeting the statutory 10% threshold under s.4 of the BMO. The tribunal exercised its discretion under s.4 to order that an owners meeting be convened for the purpose of appointing a management committee with a view to incorporation, appointed Mr Lai Chi Wai as convenor as he is fit and proper and has demonstrated sufficient support and capability, and ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the application with a direction that th…
14 Dec 2005

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. CHAN TSZ PANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. CHAN TSZ PANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM376/2004

The Tribunal found the 1997 management committee resolution valid and sufficiently proved, the applicant disclosed relevant documents and legal opinion, the respondents' defences and newly raised arguments failed, respondents were liable to pay the monthly management fee of $340 with interest from 15 January 2005, counterclaims were unproven and dismissed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.
14 Dec 2005

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. LEE CHI BIU

Citation

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. LEE CHI BIU
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM374/2004

The Tribunal found the 1997 management committee resolution valid and that the Applicant had proved entitlement to charge residential owners $340 monthly; the respondents' defences (nondisclosure, mismanagement, apportionment disputes, alleged fraud, theatre partition) failed as grounds to withhold payment; judgment granted to Applicant for sums claimed with interest and costs; counterclaims dismissed.
14 Dec 2005

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. LEE CHI BIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. LEE CHI BIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM375/2004

The Tribunal found the 1997 resolution validly authorised the increase to $340; the Applicant proved entitlement to recover the claimed sums with interest from 15 January 2005; the Respondents' defences and counter-claims failed and are dismissed; costs ordered nisi to Applicant on High Court scale with certificate for counsel.
8 Aug 2002

LEUNG YIN LING v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NO. 165, WONG NAI CHUNG ROAD

Citation

LEUNG YIN LING v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NO. 165, WONG NAI CHUNG ROAD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM63/2000

The review is dismissed: the Tribunal held that for proceedings in the Lands Tribunal a body corporate/owners incorporation represented by an authorised director or representative may be a litigant in person for the purposes of Order 62 Rule 28A; the indemnity principle does not preclude a litigant in person from recovering profit costs; the Applicant is bound by her concession to an hourly rate of HK$200 and cannot re-open that issue.
25 Jul 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MILLION FORTUNE INDUSTRIAL CENTRE v. JIKAN DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MILLION FORTUNE INDUSTRIAL CENTRE v. JIKAN DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV503/2001

The Incorporated Owners, upon incorporation under the Building Management Ordinance, have standing to enforce collectively rights in relation to the common parts; parking fees collected by the Manager for use of Common Parts were held on trust for the Management Sink Fund and must be accounted for; therefore the Incorporated Owners could recover fees collected before incorporation; claims grounded on the sealed DMC attract a 12 year limitation and adverse inferences may be drawn where defendants fail to produce accounting records.
8 Apr 2002

KWAN & PUN CO. LTD. v. CHAN LAI YEE AND OTHERS

Citation

KWAN & PUN CO. LTD. v. CHAN LAI YEE AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM542/2001

The Lands Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether the management committee was validly appointed under s.3(2)(b); the certificate of registration under s.13 does not bar the Tribunal from examining the factual validity of the appointment; appointments may be effected by election of individual members but the meeting's procedure here was fatally irregular because abstention was not accounted for and the person presiding had no authority to declare resolutions carried, so the purported appointments were invalid.
10 Jan 2002

TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM309/2001

Applicants were estopped and had waived their right to dispute authority/authenticity of attendees because they had participated in the 17 August 2000 meeting, returned and cast votes after initially objecting; their conduct constituted a clear and unequivocal representation relied upon by others causing detriment; accordingly the review was dismissed and original decision affirmed.
19 Oct 2001

TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM309/2001

Applicants were estopped from challenging the meeting because they initially objected then returned and voted without reserving rights; alternatively, on the merits the statutory and contractual requirements (BMO s3 and s5 and DMC provisions) were satisfied: proxies were valid despite lack of corporate seal where authentic and no dishonesty, the chair validly accepted late proxies, and the resolution obtained the requisite share support (30%), therefore the application failed.