Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building covenant

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2024

EASTRADE HOLDINGS LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of the Director of Lands

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1137
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV31/2024

The Consent Clause, read in its factual and contractual context as part of a planned garden estate, requires the Director's prior written consent for erecting any messuage or dwellinghouse other than the original house approved under the Building Covenant; the plaintiff failed to prove waiver or acquiescence in respect of the School Building, therefore consent was required and the Director's premium assessment stands; appeal dismissed.
11 Mar 2021

WEALTH MASTER INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. WONG WENG WA VINCENT, ADMINSTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF WONG SHING KWONG, DECEASED

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 16
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS18000/2014

The Tribunal granted the extension to 28 August 2026 because the applicants proved unforeseeable acquisition/title complications and COVID‑19 related delays sufficient to justify extending the building covenant period; the Director of Lands raised no objection; the respondent would not be prejudiced; town‑planning or achieving a better consolidated redevelopment is not by itself a defence to breach but does not preclude an extension where fairness and lack of prejudice are established.
19 Jan 2018

LEONG WING SUM v. NG KAI MAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 114
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA51/2018

On the evidence before the court there were serious issues to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo to avoid wasted or irreversible works; accordingly the court accepted the Defendant's undertaking in lieu of an interim prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendant from carrying out any further construction on the Lot pending the substantive hearing, conditional on the Plaintiff's cross-undertaking as to compensation if loss is later established.
23 Dec 2009

YING HO CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YING HO CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10834/1998

The court allowed only implied terms consistent with appellate formulation (reasonable dispatch; informing applicants of deficiencies; extension of building covenant where culpable government delay) and refused proposed additions (good faith/co-operation; prohibition on arbitrary conduct). Amendments that expanded para.29 to include MLP9, LAM-based causes, or otherwise went beyond the original scope and the basis on which the split trial was ordered were refused as abuse of process and, where applicable, time-barred. The application for a clean consolidated pleading was refused. Costs awarded…
23 Sept 2004

YING HO CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YING HO CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV17/2003

The Court held the Director had power under the DDH clause to withhold approval on aviation‑safety height grounds provided no derogation from the grant resulted; the only implied contractual term was that the building covenant period would be extended if the Government culpably delayed or unduly delayed processing so as to prevent completion; on the facts the courts below correctly found Government did not cause such delay up to April 1996; accordingly Government was entitled to retain its remedies and the appeal is dismissed, with the issue of reimbursement of amounts paid under protest left…
31 Jul 2003

YING HO CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YING HO CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV291/2002

No implied term was to be read into the grant obliging Government to fix or notify a maximum building height within a specified period; the trial judge correctly found no binding agreement to extend building covenants at nil premium; estoppel and economic duress claims failed on lack of representation, reliance and wrongful demand; plaintiffs' appeal dismissed and trial judgment affirmed.
31 Oct 1996

WONG WAN LEUNG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

WONG WAN LEUNG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR5/1996

The penultimate covenant in the Block Crown lease is a building-approval covenant, not a user restriction; on construction of the lease and Schedule the subject lots are not demised as agricultural/garden ground and therefore the lawful user is building land permitting houses as of right; compensation must be assessed on building-land market value using appropriate comparables, resulting in award of $290,214.
16 Dec 1986

T.S. CHENG AND SONS LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

T.S. CHENG AND SONS LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1595/1986

The building covenant in the Crown Lease restricts the lessee and successors to the erection of 'one or more villa residences only' for the duration of the lease; the 1957 modification allowed maintenance of the then‑existing 3‑storey five flats but did not waive the restrictive covenant; Building Authority approval does not amount to waiver of lease terms; accordingly the plaintiff's declarations were refused and the Crown may insist on compliance or require a premium for modification.
1 Oct 1983

SHUN SHING HING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

SHUN SHING HING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3384/1982

The Crown's internal, unpublicized premia/extension policy did not create contractual rights or promises enforceable against the Crown; the prerequisites for implying a contractual term (necessity, obviousness, capability of clear expression) were not met, and no estoppel arose because there was no clear, specific representation or promise intended to create legal relations and no enforceable reliance; therefore the plaintiff's claim for entitlement to extension on the 1975 scale failed.
12 Feb 1981

CHAN HUNG KAY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

CHAN HUNG KAY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1128/1980

Given the plaintiff's admitted wilful default, persistent dilatoriness, indicia of land speculation, inadequate and selective financial disclosure and absence of exceptional circumstances, the court exercised its discretion under the principles in Shiloh Spinners to refuse relief against re-entry and dismissed the application with costs.