Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unauthorized building works

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

VICTORY SUPER LTD v. LOI WAI YUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKLdT 8
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS2000/2023

The Tribunal concluded that on the evidence the Applicant had not taken reasonable steps under s4(2)(b) because its offers fell outside the band of what could be regarded as fair and reasonable given conflicting valuation evidence, failures to value unauthorized building works correctly, reliance on discredited comparables, and the Applicant's conduct in managing the building and common parts which undermined its position; while the Tribunal did not grant leave on prospects of success, it granted leave in the interests of justice because the proper construction of s4(2)(b) is a matter of publ…
17 Dec 2025

LEUNG MEI KING (suing as Administratrix and surviving daughter of LEUNG SHUN YICK, deceased) v. LI YU MING AND OTHER OCCUPANTS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3120/2015

On the balance of aerial photographs, survey sheets and witness evidence the court found that Mr Wong Sr and thereafter the Defendant had factual possession and the requisite intention to possess Lot 84 from at least July 1994 (and evidence pointed to occupation since 1974), that possession was continuous and adverse, and that payments of government rent or MOT licence did not negate animus; therefore the Defendant established title by adverse possession for the relevant limitation period.
30 May 2025

RICH TARGET PROPERTIES LTD v. TREASURE RING LIMITED TRADING AS YAN OI NURSING HOME NO.1 BRANCH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2341
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1174/2016

The court found the pleaded oral agreement (as alleged by the plaintiff) did not exist; although the pipes were unauthorized building works installed during renovation, the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that 2/F was the source of the water seepage because all relevant tests were negative and no plausible explanation rendered those negatives inconclusive; accordingly plaintiff’s claims in contract and tort failed and were dismissed; the 1st defendant’s counterclaim for return of the rental deposit succeeded.
13 May 2025

LEUNG KIT SANG AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BLOCKS E AND E1 OF NORTH POINT VIEW MANSION

Citation

[2025] HKDC 787
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3865/2021

The phrase ‘Ground Floors … in Block E and E1’ in the 1961 Assignment was construed to mean only the roofed‑over ground floor (the Covered Area) and not the surrounding open external area; the Open Area is common parts under the DMC and the Building Management Ordinance and the plaintiffs’ enclosure and Structure constitute unauthorized building works not exempt under s.41(3) of the Buildings Ordinance, entitling the incorporated owners to declarations, injunctions, demolition and nominal damages.
17 Nov 2023

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING FAI BUILDING v. CHAN YUN CHOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 65
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM29/2020

On the facts the respondents had permitted and/or adopted the UBWs and adopted the three Alterations; the UBWs breached clause 4(m) of the DMC; the Alterations unreasonably interfered with use of common parts and breached s.34I(1)(b) BMO (deemed breach of the DMC); respondents are liable and a mandatory injunction is granted requiring removal/reinstatement of Alterations A & B within 60 days; however the applicant failed to prove causation and increased costs for waterproofing works and the claimed damages of HKD 214,000 are dismissed.
4 Aug 2023

RESOURCES LEADER LTD v. HO NGO YING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1837
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2667/2018

Clause 20 of the Preliminary Agreement (the as‑is/cockloft clause) validly precluded the purchaser from objecting to the disclosed cockloft and its access; the Plaintiff's requisitions based on the Pau report dated 26 October 2018 were raised out of time (within 14 days of completion) and not waived; on the facts there was no real risk of enforcement by the Building Authority in respect of the material UBWs and the Defendant had shown and was able to give good title; Plaintiff's claim dismissed and Defendant entitled to forfeit deposits totalling HK$3,568,000.
20 Feb 2023

WONG WAI PING AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MOUNT PARKER LODGE

Citation

[2023] HKDC 249
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5891/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found the waterproofing membrane failure at the localized main seepage area was caused by accelerated deterioration due to focal added loading and wind strain transmitted by the heavy main canopy through the small base plates, shortening the membrane's lifespan at those spots; the IO was not entitled to rely on the Exemption Clause as it does not apply to the IO; accordingly plaintiffs' claim for reimbursement was dismissed and plaintiffs ordered to pay the IO's costs (order nisi).
6 Oct 2022

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3054
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL856/2021

The Appeal Tribunal erred in law and acted irrationally by setting aside the building orders on the basis of three considerations that were legally irrelevant or unsupported by evidence; s.14's prior approval requirement is substantive and not merely procedural, BA's discretion under s.24 is limited and must be exercised to protect public safety and compliance with statutory approval processes; accordingly the Determination was quashed and the appeals remitted for reconsideration.
29 Jul 2022

TSUI LAI WAI v. THE INCORPORATEDOWNERS OF LOK KU HOUSE

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 32
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM58/2021

Applicant failed to prove entitlement to reconnection under Clause 3(d) because the evidence shows the supply apparatus was likely installed only after the UBW were erected and there is no proof of the requisite collective/majority or unanimous approval for installation over common parts; further, after compliance with the demolition injunction the units would most likely revert to uncovered flat roofs with no permitted lawful use making reconnection meaningless; therefore declarations and order were refused.
5 May 2022

CHAN SIU CHEUNG HENRY AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WING KEUNG PETER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 325
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1500/2016

On the evidence the payments were rent and an oral periodic tenancy existed covering the external wall and part of the lane; the hawker licence did not confer property rights in the wall; the defendant held over after termination and was ordered to deliver vacant possession, remove the stall and canopy, and to pay mesne profits set at $5,000 per month from 1 March 2016 until delivery of vacant possession; the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.