Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building regulations

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2023

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. SANWA TRADING (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 691
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV571/2021

The PSPA referred to the car parking space as marked on the DMC Ground Floor Plan (the Original CPS 2); the Re-designation into the VOID area was not legally effective (no requisite government approval and the VOID areas are common areas as determined in prior final judgments), the Assignment Plan did not reflect the parties' true common intention and therefore rectification to show Original CPS 2 was ordered; Wing Ming's attack was barred by earlier determinations and commercial common sense supported transacting what could lawfully be sold.
23 Dec 2008

WONG PING HUNG ADAM v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

Citation

WONG PING HUNG ADAM v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL141/2007

All four principal grounds of review fail: the non-divestiture complaint was unarguable in context because equitable doctrines and consistent conduct vested title in equity and in any event the Authority and Director supported the approval; the Instrument lawfully covered the widening as 'improvement works'; the MOE was correctly applied by reference to the ordinary meaning of 'arcade' and no misapplication was shown; PNAP 30 did not give rise to a legitimate expectation requiring additional consultations. Accordingly the judicial review is dismissed and costs awarded to the Director and the…
11 Dec 2007

INTERNATIONAL TRADER LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

INTERNATIONAL TRADER LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL38/2007

Applying BPR reg.21(3), the plot ratio for a single building on an amalgamated site is the building's total GFA divided by the total site area; if that resulting single plot ratio exceeds the OZP limit applicable to any part (here R(C)7 limit of 5) the development contravenes the OZP absent a relaxation by the Town Planning Board, and the Tribunal did not err in refusing to exercise its residual discretion to approve the plans.
8 Nov 2000

Growth Bright Ltd. v. The Incorporated Owners of Grandview Building

Citation

Growth Bright Ltd. v. The Incorporated Owners of Grandview Building
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM61/2000

Clause 3(a) of the DMC, when construed in the factual matrix of the building as built in 1978, did not entitle the applicant to break open the domestic lift shaft and install doors to make the domestic high‑rise lifts serve the commercial floors; doing so would defeat the designer’s clear intention to separate domestic and commercial users and would fundamentally alter the designated use of those lifts, and clause 4(f)b confirms the exemption scheme that is incompatible with the applicant’s construction.
30 Jun 1999

INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MIRADOR MANSION v. TECOWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MIRADOR MANSION v. TECOWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4069/1996

The court held the restrictive covenant in the 1962 assignment could not be enforced by the Incorporated Owners because the covenant was not shown to be expressed and intended to benefit all other owners and enforcement lay with the covenantee (CTT) and its successors; accordingly the Plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenant. Separately the court held the Incorporated Owners had standing under the Building Management Ordinance to enforce the Deed of Mutual Covenant and found the lower levels of the machine rooms are common parts, the Defendant unlawfully blocked vents and…
18 Mar 1997

REAL HONEST INVESTMENT LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

REAL HONEST INVESTMENT LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/1996

The correspondence constituted a limited waiver, clear and unequivocal only insofar as necessary to permit the specific development then proposed (Interocean Court); it did not amount to a general waiver of the 35 foot height restriction for the duration of the lease, therefore the judge erred in holding otherwise and the appeal is allowed.
29 Jul 1996

CHAN CHIK SUM v. GREAT PEARL INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation

CHAN CHIK SUM v. GREAT PEARL INDUSTRIES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1040/1996

Defendant's requisitions were not properly raised because they were unreasonably late and in breach of Clause 19, and on the evidence the railings were non‑structural and safe so there was no breach of the D.M.C. or Building Regulations; accordingly the Plaintiff had shown good title and his responses were sufficient, entitling him to declarations and orders claimed.
22 Jun 1989

UNION CARBIDE ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

UNION CARBIDE ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP136/1989

The second applicant (authorised person) lacked standing to bring the judicial review; the proper party was the owner UCA. The Building Authority was entitled to require particulars under s16 and to consider whether to apply or dispense with Code/IPMS standards, but it must exercise its discretion on the correct factual and legal basis (treating the proposals as repair/replacement works when appropriate). No relief was granted to UCA at this stage.
16 Dec 1987

ERIC CUMINE ASSOCITATES (A FIRM) v. THE WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

ERIC CUMINE ASSOCITATES (A FIRM) v. THE WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL48/1985

On the facts the architects exercised the degree of skill and care expected of competent Hong Kong architects in advising on Circular 58, negotiating with government and in their selective use of exemptions; accordingly they were not negligent and plaintiffs' claim failed.
10 Jul 1984

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Citation

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13431/1983

Read properly the pleaded allegations concerning failure to negotiate an overall plot ratio and failure to apply for exemptions disclose a reasonable cause of action and are not properly the subject of strike-out under O.18 r.19; accordingly the strike-out application is dismissed, although the pleading is ambiguous and voluntary amendments as offered by the plaintiffs are appropriate and would in any event likely have been ordered; costs are apportioned accordingly.