Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Small claims tribunal appeals

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. WONG YAU ON

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA70/2024

The Third Schedule together with clauses 4(f)(2)–(4) expressly exclude carpark owners from paying security deposits and monthly contributions; construing the DMC as a whole and giving priority to specific provisions, carpark owners are not liable to pay management contributions, and the appellant failed to show an arguable appeal with a reasonable prospect of success, so leave to appeal was dismissed.
13 Sept 2023

梁滿祥對中國海外物業服務有限公司

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1057
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP282/2022

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time because the applicant failed to meet the high s29A threshold: the issue of applying the long-established estoppel/acquiescence principle was fact-specific and not of general public importance, the application was materially out of time, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success; accordingly leave was refused and costs awarded to the respondent.
18 Sept 2015

聯基新樓業主立案法團 v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD

Citation

聯基新樓業主立案法團 v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA9/2015

On proper construction the DMC conferred only limited rights on the Developer to use the External Walls for specified purposes, which did not amount to exclusive possession or exclusive right to use/occupation/enjoyment; the Deputy Adjudicator was entitled to find as a fact that the Developer had not exercised such rights in respect of the External Walls; consequently the Developer is not solely liable under section 34H of the BMO and the appeals fail.
16 Feb 2015

SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA57/2014

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant company had minimal issued capital and no known assets in Hong Kong creating a real risk it could not meet a costs order; the delay in making the application was not sufficient to defeat the application; the amount sought ($200,000 for both appeals) was excessive relative to the total amount involved ($98,000) and the confined nature of the issues, and the court fixed security at $20,000 per appeal to be provided by 2 March failing which the appeals shall be dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BALWIN COURT v. WONG YAU ON

梁滿祥 對 中國海外物業服務有限公司

聯基新樓業主立案法團 v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD

SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD

梁滿祥對中國海外物業服務有限公司