Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fire safety

Legal area

Court

2 Jan 2009

WONG KWAN YEE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF DIAMOND MANSION (NOS. 466-468, LOCKHART ROAD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KWAN YEE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF DIAMOND MANSION (NOS. 466-468, LOCKHART ROAD) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2576/2007

The Registrar directed that each side may adduce one expert report each: (1) an authorised person to opine on existence of the Opening since 16 March 1965, conformity with approved structural plans, whether it constituted a fire exit, and whether the works required prior approval under s18(2)(a) BMO or s14 Buildings Ordinance and associated Regulations/Code; and (2) a real estate surveyor to opine on rental and sale value with and without the Opening. The directions were granted without prejudice to the Defendants' contention that expert evidence is unnecessary.
3 Jul 2007

SMARTFUL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH MING CENTRE BLOCK C

Citation

SMARTFUL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH MING CENTRE BLOCK C
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM152/2006

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.
30 Dec 2005

MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD v. ATLAS LTD

Citation

MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD v. ATLAS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV291/2004

The appeal is dismissed. The Court held that "practical completion" in the agreement meant the hotel must be ready for beneficial occupation and use as a hotel on completion and permitted minor reparable defects; the defects identified did not amount to a repudiatory breach. The roof installations did not, on the evidence, "involve the structure" so as to negate the s41(3) exemption or render title defective; the Occupation Permit and professionals' certifications supported that conclusion; the vendor's replies adequately answered the requisitions on title.
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…
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.
24 Sept 1971

MABEL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM SIU KAN

Citation

MABEL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM SIU KAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1664/1970

The court found the primary user to be domestic because the family lived in the premises with kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms, the office use was secondary, the Occupation Permit indicated domestic use and the Commissioner’s certificate recorded domestic primary user; therefore the tenancy is a domestic tenancy protected by the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance and the plaintiff’s claim for possession failed.

Hong Kong Case Law

WONG KWAN YEE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF DIAMOND MANSION (NOS. 466-468, LOCKHART ROAD) AND ANOTHER

SMARTFUL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH MING CENTRE BLOCK C

MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD v. ATLAS LTD

INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MIRADOR MANSION v. TECOWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

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

MABEL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM SIU KAN