Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty to maintain common parts

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2024

CHU CHEUNG CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PROVIDENT CENTRE No 21-53 WHARF ROAD, NORTH POINT, HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1899
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ244/2021

Court found on the balance of probabilities the leakage originated from defects in waterproofing of the water tank houses (common parts) not from the roof floor works performed by the 4th defendant; the incorporated owners and manager had actual/constructive knowledge and failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and abate the nuisance within a reasonable time, breaching common law nuisance, the DMC and s18 BMO; the 4th defendant was not liable and the 1st/2nd defendants' contribution/indemnity claim was dismissed; damages of HK$2,456,565.04 awarded to plaintiffs with interest and costs…
18 May 2023

RISE TALL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. YEUK MAN CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2399/2019

Paragraph 1(a) was dismissed because the proposed evidence did not constitute recognised expert evidence governed by recognised standards and would not be helpful; the master's split-trial order was set aside because the defendant demonstrated that hiving off quantum was not justified as an exception to the general rule of single trial given the narrow, self-contained scope of valuation evidence and the risks of duplication, delay and prejudice; the fresh expert report was excluded for failure to show special grounds and because it could have been obtained earlier.
18 May 2023

RISE TALL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. YEUK MAN CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1953/2019

Paragraph 1(a) (evidence as to what constitutes 'properly managed and maintained premises') is not admissible expert evidence because no recognised specialised expertise governed by standards exists and it would not assist the court; a split trial separating quantum from liability was not justified because exceptional circumstances were not shown and the anticipated savings did not outweigh the risk of duplication, delay and increased aggregate costs; expert evidence is appropriate for valuation only; fresh expert report on appeal was not admitted because no special grounds shown and the repo…
8 Sept 2021

GREAT TOWER DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUSO APARTMENTS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1138
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2308/2017

Court found on the expert evidence that rainwater entered through the external wall and not via window frames; despite seepage the IO had taken reasonable steps after notification (communications, obtaining quotations, arranging inspections and surveyor reports) and thus did not breach its duty—plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim for unpaid management fees June 2005–December 2018 succeeded for HKD 215,800 and costs awarded to defendant.
5 Dec 2019

WONG KIT MING AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH HOI MANSION

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1652
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ213/2017

The court found on the evidence and uncontested expert opinion of the plaintiffs' expert that the water seepage resulted from long‑term deterioration of common waste Pipe B which the Incorporated Owners failed to maintain in breach of the DMC and s18 BMO; the defendant's expert evidence was excluded as inadmissible due to lack of independence, advocacy and undisclosed dual roles; defendant's allegations of plaintiffs' unauthorised acts causing the seepage were rejected; plaintiffs awarded judgment limited by their agreement to HK$3,000,000 plus interest, mandatory remedial order and costs nis…
20 Nov 2019

LAM SUK YEE AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAM KIN MANSION

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1289
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/2019

The IO did not breach its duty: the applicable standard was one of reasonable management having regard to the DMC, the design, construction and intended semi-open use of the driveway and covered playground; some minor seepage was foreseeable and permissible for a semi-open playground and the plaintiffs failed to prove the IO's breach or causation of damage. The conversion into sealed domestic units was unlawful and breached clause 22(i) of the DMC; that unlawful conversion contributed to the damage and justified the IO's counterclaim and the mandatory injunction to remove unauthorised works.…
14 Sept 2016

WONG CHAU WAN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NOS 11 12 CANAL ROAD WEST, HONG KONG

Citation

WONG CHAU WAN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NOS 11 12 CANAL ROAD WEST, HONG KONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI227/2013

Judge found the plaintiff not a truthful witness, concluded the alleged accident was not proved on the evidence (photos, CCTV, medical records, surveillance, failure to call key witness), and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for lack of proof of the accident and causative negligence by the defendant.
10 Jun 2011

LEGENT CERAMIC LTD v. RAINBOW CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEGENT CERAMIC LTD v. RAINBOW CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2434/2008

Rainbow Choice was liable because the court found on the evidence that debris causing the blocked drain and the resultant flood originated from Rainbow Choice's renovation works and that Rainbow Choice failed in its duty to prevent/repair the hole between the 1st Floor and the shop; the Incorporated Owners, though accepting maintenance duty for the canopy, had no notice and were not liable as the risk of this specific flooding was not reasonably foreseeable, so IO's liability was dismissed and Rainbow's third party claim against IO failed.
23 Jun 2010

HING MAN GROUP CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ON HO INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Citation

HING MAN GROUP CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ON HO INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1628/2006

The court held that the floor slab above Unit C constituted a common part which the Defendant (owners incorporation) was required to maintain under the Building Management Ordinance; it failed to do so (allowing water ponding, trapping under metal sheets, corrosion and overloading), this breach caused the concrete spalling and collapse, and the Defendant is wholly liable for plaintiffs' losses; counterclaim for contribution by Defendant dismissed.
1 Nov 2007

LAU CHUN WING ROD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PO ON BUILDING

Citation

LAU CHUN WING ROD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PO ON BUILDING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV20/2007

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge rightly found on the facts that the Incorporated Owners breached s18(1)(a) of the Building Management Ordinance and were liable in nuisance and negligence by failing to take appropriate investigative and remedial steps after being alerted to the defect; the injunction, declaration and order for damages to be assessed were therefore upheld.