Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Removal of structure

  • 31 Jul 2014

    WONG LIM AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CAMBRIA COURT

    Citation
    WONG LIM AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CAMBRIA COURT
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDBM39/2013

    Tribunal preferred applicants' factual evidence and found the CP27 front boundary has remained at position C since 1977, marked by a metal post installed c.1985; the applicants' on-site measurements (effectively 173 inches x 84 inches) are within acceptable margin of error vis-à-vis the approved plan; respondent failed to prove CP27 was wrongly marked or that position A (or B) complied with the approved plan; accordingly CP27's front line is declared at C, respondent's counterclaims are dismissed and respondent ordered to pay applicants' costs (order nisi).

  • 27 Apr 2010

    LUNG PO KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAM SHEUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LUNG PO KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAM SHEUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDBM243/2005

    The IO, by virtue of Section 16 and Section 18(1)(c) BMO together with Clauses 21(i) and 21(l) of the DMC, had a duty to take reasonably necessary steps to remove the wall that illegally intruded into CP25; the wall constituted a continuing trespass and the IO failed to take sufficient measures, therefore a mandatory injunction ordering the IO to remove the part of the wall within CP25 was justified (compliance within nine months); individual owners' direct claims against the occupier for obstruction were not maintainable because rights in relation to common parts are vested in the IO under S…

  • 19 Mar 2002

    KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. v. CHIN YAU PING

    Citation
    KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. v. CHIN YAU PING
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDBM493/2001

    The metal structure was a permanent alteration to the terrace, it materially altered the external appearance of the Development and facilitated climbing thereby creating security risks to other units; these facts established a breach of clause 5.1.21 (and 5.2.7) of the DMC and entitled the Applicant to injunctive relief, an order for removal within 14 days, entitlement for the Applicant to remove and recover costs if the Respondent failed to comply, and a costs order nisi; damages were not awarded for lack of evidence.