Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Landlord liability

Legal area

Court

25 Apr 2018

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NO.88 LOCKHART ROAD v. KAR KAR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 884
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2239/2014

The 2nd defendant breached Clause 7(c) of the DMC by permitting the tenant's nuisance because it failed to take reasonable steps within its power to prevent the tenant's excessive use of common areas; consequently the plaintiff would have been bound to win at trial on that claim, so costs are awarded to the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant on the ordinary (party and party) basis including costs of this application with certificate for counsel; indemnity costs are not justified.
25 Apr 2008

SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD v. WONG PAK SUM AND OTHERS

Citation

SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD v. WONG PAK SUM AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM68/2007

The Tribunal exercised its broad discretion to depart from the strict application of the costs‑follow‑the‑event rule because the 5th respondent had limited involvement, did not actively oppose at trial, and required materially less time and effort from the Applicant; accordingly the 5th respondent was ordered to pay one‑fifth of the costs of the application.
1 Aug 2007

WONG HUEN MIN v. WONG-KONG CHONG-KAM-SAU TONG CLANSMAN ASSOCIATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG HUEN MIN v. WONG-KONG CHONG-KAM-SAU TONG CLANSMAN ASSOCIATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6455/2004

The 1st Defendant retained contractual powers and sufficient control to inspect and carry out repairs; having received notice and a surveyor's report recommending repairs, the 1st Defendant failed to take reasonable steps or make proper inquiries and therefore is liable in nuisance, negligence and for breach of clause 10(c) of the Deed of Mutual Covenant; it has no fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence and summary judgment is entered against it for damages, interest and costs to be assessed.
1 Dec 2000

WONG SAU KAM AND ANOTHER v. SHUM YUK FONG AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG SAU KAM AND ANOTHER v. SHUM YUK FONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI798/1998

Summary judgment refused because the 1st defendant's knowledge of the dangerous state of the unauthorized canopy was in dispute and knowledge is a fact-intensive issue inappropriate for interlocutory inference; unconditional leave to defend granted. Interim payment application dismissed because the court was not satisfied the plaintiffs would obtain judgment against the 1st defendant and there are conflicting authorities on making interim payments where leave to defend is granted.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NO.88 LOCKHART ROAD v. KAR KAR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD v. WONG PAK SUM AND OTHERS

WONG HUEN MIN v. WONG-KONG CHONG-KAM-SAU TONG CLANSMAN ASSOCIATION LTD AND ANOTHER

WONG SAU KAM AND ANOTHER v. SHUM YUK FONG AND OTHERS