2 Mar 2026
法院裁定涉案位置屬公用部分，被告雖曾基於歷史同意或默許而得以經營，但在地政處自2019年起多次指該用途違反地契並拒絕法團之豁免申請、法團已給予合理通知及適當寬限期後，該等默許或許可已屬可被中止；故法團有權按建築物管理條例第34I收回該等公用部分之空置管有權，並判令答辯人在規定期限內交還。
21 Jul 2022
The Tribunal accepted the applicant's lay and expert evidence that Structures 1–3 are unauthorised, occupy or alter common parts or the building in breach of clause 10 of the deed and/or s34I of the Building Management Ordinance, and that the respondent's continued possession/use makes him liable; no contrary evidence was adduced by the respondent, so demolition and reinstatement orders with costs were warranted and granted within the timeframe specified.
3 Jul 2007
The Applicant's use of the premises as an RCHE constituted a domestic use (boarding-house) in breach of the Occupation Permit and DMC Clause 14(d); the Manager was entitled under express DMC powers (Clauses 7(d)(23),(24) and 7(e)) to forbid lift use pending rectification; the Respondent's actions did not unreasonably interfere with use of common parts under BMO s34I nor breach s18(2A) because Codes of Practice are guidance and there was no demonstrated hazard or failure of fire access.