Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegal structures

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2023

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KIN YUEN MANSION v. CHAN TIN KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKDC 937
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5673/2021

The summons was dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was irrelevant and unnecessary: the plaintiff's cause of action under the DMC and s34I Cap 344 establishes a breach regardless of whether the structures are 'illegal'; the Building Order is unchallenged and presumed valid; the proposed expert would be asked to opine on matters of law; and the evidence would not affect the adverse possession counterclaim absent allegations of criminal/public‑interest offences.
21 Jul 2022

聯安大廈業主立案法團對劉軍樂

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 30
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM144/2019

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's lay and expert evidence that Structures 1–3 are unauthorised, occupy or alter common parts or the building in breach of clause 10 of the deed and/or s34I of the Building Management Ordinance, and that the respondent's continued possession/use makes him liable; no contrary evidence was adduced by the respondent, so demolition and reinstatement orders with costs were warranted and granted within the timeframe specified.
19 Feb 2021

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KINGLAND APARTMENTS v. 余國偉trading as余國偉醫館 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 155
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4542/2015

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the $48,000 payment was incurred for removal of the Metal Rooftop: the First Quotation described different locations, communications establishing a linkage occurred only after the fact and were hearsay of limited weight, key witnesses/contractors were not called and documentary and pleading support was insufficient; accordingly the claim for $48,000 is dismissed.
11 Jan 2021

中紀投資有限公司 v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 2
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM118/2017

Leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success on points of law: the impugned matters were either factual findings supported by evidence, not points of law, or not properly pleaded; the review decision correctly confirmed the original judgment and there was no other interest of justice to hear the appeal; costs awarded.
9 Jul 2020

中紀投資有限公司 v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 25
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM118/2017

The Tribunal denied the application for review because the applicant failed to justify adducing fresh expert evidence without leave, sought to raise new factual and mixed law-and-fact issues contrary to the finality of trial, failed to discharge the burden of proving the Post-Window Frames were illegal, and the 2017 Resolution on its true construction covered the Post-Window Frames; accordingly the Judgment was confirmed and the review dismissed.
2 Jan 2020

LAM HUNG v. LAU TIN SHEUNG

Citation

[2020] HKDC 12
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4107/2018

Despite admissions of beneficial ownership, the court refused judgment on admission and summary judgment because the claim for a declaratory order was unnecessary/hypothetical in part and there existed triable issues (notably the alleged subsequent oral agreement and Will and the contested basement) which prevented summary disposal; however the defendant was granted unconditional leave to amend his Defence to plead the basement counterclaim.
9 Aug 2019

CHAN YUEN LING v. SUMIT KUMAR

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 47
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1219/2019

The respondent remains liable to pay rent and mesne profits despite alleged landlord breaches concerning unauthorised roof structures; such breaches did not render the tenancy void or frustrated and the Lands Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's damages claim in these possession proceedings, therefore the applicant is entitled to vacant possession, arrears/mesne profits and costs.
1 Mar 2017

WONG KIT MAN also known as WONG CARMEN KIT MAN AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KIU HING MANSION

Citation

WONG KIT MAN also known as WONG CARMEN KIT MAN AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KIU HING MANSION
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1466/2015

Court found operative cause of leakage was rust and failure of the plaintiffs' eaves which caused cracks in the supporting structure allowing water ingress; plaintiffs failed to prove alleged misrepresentations and in any event claims were time-barred; therefore defendant not liable for nuisance or damages; counterclaim for removal of eaves and reinstatement granted.
20 Oct 2016

KONG SHING TAI v. KHAN USMAN

Citation

KONG SHING TAI v. KHAN USMAN
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1746/2016

On the evidence the Default Judgment was irregular because there was insufficient proof of effective service; the respondent's factual case of an agreed rent reduction lacked credible supporting evidence and the scribbled note did not constitute an enforceable agreement; the proposed appeal raised factual disputes not points of law and had no reasonable prospect of success, therefore leave to appeal and a stay of execution were refused.
10 Jun 2016

CHU CHUNG SHING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU CHUNG SHING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM CHUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2773/2011

Adjournment refused because defendants were represented when judgment given, had sufficient time and their proposed grounds demonstrated understanding; leave to appeal refused because grounds lacked reasonable prospects of success, issues were already considered or arose from matters agreed at trial and alleged new evidence did not meet Ladd v Marshall criteria; stay of execution refused given lack of prospect of success and public urgency due to illegal structures; costs awarded to plaintiff.