Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common parts under building management ordinance

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2022

SPM LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS ORDINANCE)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1574/2021

On proper construction of the DMC the allocation of 1 undivided share to the External Walls combined with clause D1(i) confers the full and exclusive right and privilege to hold, use and occupy that part on the registered holder of the share, so the 5/F–30/F External Walls are not common parts under s.2 of the BMO; the Appeal Tribunal's contrary construction was an error of law, the Determination is quashed and the obligation to repair lies on the registered owner (Wideland) under the DMC (clause F7(a)).
26 Jun 2017

BEST VIEW MEDICAL CO LTD v. RICHERMEN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

BEST VIEW MEDICAL CO LTD v. RICHERMEN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1080/2015

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the judge found no real prospects of success: the air-conditioning and fire services systems are parts of the Premises (not common parts), and demanding non-refundable reinstatement charges for works on those parts—where the Tenancy Agreement contemplates refundable deposits—was unreasonable and breached implied terms, so the proposed appeal would not succeed.
11 Feb 2010

KAU CHUN WING v. MAIN SHINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KAU CHUN WING v. MAIN SHINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2525/2007

Parapet walls (inner and outer faces) are common parts owned in undivided shares by all unit owners; the DMC and the assignment reserved rights to install cables on external walls including parapet walls and empowered the manager to license installations; licences granted by the manager lawfully justified licensees' entry onto the Flat Roof for installation and maintenance; therefore the plaintiff's claims in trespass and nuisance fail and the fiduciary claim was not pursued.
8 Jan 2010

CENTRAL MANAGEMENT LTD v. LIGHT FIELD INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CENTRAL MANAGEMENT LTD v. LIGHT FIELD INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA440/2008

The structural part of the partition wall (shown in solid black on the plans) is a common area/facility under the DMC and a common part under the BMO; therefore the defendants could not lawfully remove or alter it merely by obtaining Building Authority approval or by reference to the colouring on sale plans; the developer did not make a misrepresentation inducing purchase as to entitlement to merge the units; accordingly a declaration and an injunction were granted and the third party claim dismissed.
23 Dec 1999

TSE LAI YIN LILY AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS

Citation

TSE LAI YIN LILY AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI828/1997

The canopy over Sai On Street was a common part of Albert House; its collapse was caused by overloading (screeding, fish tank, sign) coupled with long‑term lack of maintenance leading to severe corrosion of reinforcement, with demolition hammering as the trigger; the incorporated owners (1st), the management company (2nd), the tenant/restaurant parties (3rd and 4th) and the landlord (5th) each breached duties of care in negligence and nuisance and are liable; apportionment of blame: 3rd+4th 50%, 1st 15%, 2nd 15%, 5th 15%, 6th 5%.

Hong Kong Case Law

SPM LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS ORDINANCE)

BEST VIEW MEDICAL CO LTD v. RICHERMEN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD

KAU CHUN WING v. MAIN SHINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

CENTRAL MANAGEMENT LTD v. LIGHT FIELD INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

TSE LAI YIN LILY AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS