Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parking rights

Legal area

Court

27 May 2020

SAM HEI TAI HING FOODS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAFORD INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 871
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1417/2019

Plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case that the defendant, as manager and incorporated owners, prima facie breached clauses 2 and 4 of the DMC and committed a private nuisance by blocking access and interfering with plaintiffs' lawful use of the driveway; damages to plaintiffs were potentially unquantifiable and inadequate, while defendant's loss was largely quantifiable; on balance of convenience a limited interlocutory injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm, with cross-undertakings to continue until trial.
17 May 2012

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ESTORIL COURT v. CHEER RICH ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ESTORIL COURT v. CHEER RICH ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM41/2010

The Tribunal accepted that only the vehicle encroaching adjacent to parking space 46A gave rise to a prima facie breach of the DMC and that the IO's warnings were insufficient, so an injunction was granted ordering the IO to take action within 28 days to have the vehicle moved. The respondent failed to prove prima facie breaches in respect of demolished partition walls, lift lobby renovation, conversion of Reserved Space into additional carparks, and conversion of common areas into driver waiting rooms/storerooms/cafe9s because either the acts were within IO discretion, lacked evidence of st…
18 Oct 2011

KAI HING METAL PRODUCTS FACTORY CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUNDERLAND ESTATE AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAI HING METAL PRODUCTS FACTORY CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUNDERLAND ESTATE AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM339/2010

The Applicant was denied equitable relief because it had unclean hands—longstanding double‑parking and more recently obstructive triple‑parking used as leverage in disputes—thus the Tribunal refused declarations and injunctions except ordering removal of the Railing because it affected common area and the Applicant should have been consulted before its right to use that area was affected.
15 Sept 2011

CHATHAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLD KING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHATHAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLD KING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV252/2010

The Court refused leave to appeal because the questions did not raise issues of great or public importance; the Court applied Moncrieff to recognize an ancillary right to stop for loading and unloading (a distinct issue from parking), found no abandonment of the injunction claim, and held that the Court properly exercised its discretion in granting injunctive relief, so leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
30 Apr 2010

RADFORD PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

RADFORD PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV257/2009

A car stacking device that, when raised, provides more than one space contravenes Special Condition 15(a) which permits not more than one parking space per residential unit; an undertaking not to use the lower space is insufficient to avoid the breach, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
13 Nov 2009

RADFORD PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

RADFORD PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2297/2008

The court held that although 'space' can be understood as a three-dimensional cubic area, the express numeric restriction in Special Condition 15(a) ('not more than one space for each private residential unit') limits each owner to one such space; a mechanical stacking device that produces two spaces therefore breaches the condition, and the plaintiff's undertaking to park only one vehicle at a time does not avoid the breach.
18 Feb 2005

TLC TRADE LAND CO LTD v. SAMUEL N & CO LTD

Citation

TLC TRADE LAND CO LTD v. SAMUEL N & CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1861/2004

Clause 3 of the Partition Agreement granted all rights of way over the strip including vehicular access; there was no implied abandonment or binding estoppel by convention; Samuel may park on the strip but must remove vehicles to avoid obstructing TLC's vehicular access; TLC failed to prove causation and quantify claimed damages, so damages dismissed.
6 Nov 2003

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

Citation

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

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV2/2003

The owners had an existing equitable right to require an account of parking fees at the time of incorporation and that right passed to the incorporated owners under s.16 Building Management Ordinance; the manager and owner breached the DMC by diverting parking fees from the Management Sink Fund and were liable to account; the Court affirmed the judgment ordering payment of the assessed sums and dismissed the appeal; s.18(2)(g) cannot be used to create rights where s.16 gives the enforcement right and the trial judge's accounting result is not disturbed.