Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Maintenance obligations

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2025

GOLDEN KEY INDUSTRIAL LTD 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH CHUN INDUSTRIAL CENTRE及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 37
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM125/2022

Tribunal refused permission to appeal and stay because the proposed grounds mainly re-argued factual findings and new factual points not raised at trial; no arguable legal error was shown on core issues including scope of injunction and causation; the injunction as framed was proportionate to remedy proven defects; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no basis to stay execution; costs of the summons were awarded against the first respondent (HKD 80,000).
26 Nov 2021

有關張偉光的事宜

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3571
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8554/2020

Excluding the statutory MPF accrued benefits (which are not presently withdrawable), the debtor was insolvent and therefore satisfied s.10(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; the respondent failed to prove that the debtor had available assets or income sufficient to meet his listed debts, and unpaid maintenance is not a provable debt in bankruptcy, so a bankruptcy order was properly granted.
22 Mar 2021

DONORA CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUEN KAM CENTRE

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 17
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM176/2018

The external walls are common parts under the DMC and the BMO; they can be validly sub‑divided into Domestic, Commercial, Car Port and Building Common Areas as defined by the DMC and maintenance costs should be charged to the relevant category accounts; limited exclusive rights to affix advertisements or fittings do not give the developer exclusive possession or sole maintenance obligation; the parapet wall is part of the commercial external walls; accordingly Declarations (1), (2) and (4) are granted and Declaration (3) is refused.
25 Jan 2021

MEMORAN CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MEI HING MANSION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 154
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT18/2020

The slab falls within the BMO definition of common parts both as a structural support and as a roof (Schedule items encompassing structural supports and roofs) and the DMC does not allocate the slab to exclusive ownership; therefore the Incorporated Owners are responsible for maintenance and repairs under the BMO; the legal question was suitable for determination under Order 14A and a declaration of responsibility was appropriate while factual matters as to extent and cause of damage remain for later resolution.
27 Feb 2019

簡允聰對梁文幹及另一人

Citation

[2019] HKDC 12
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2388/2016

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's expert that the seepage to 29B was more likely caused by defective waterproofing/works in 30B (upstairs bathroom) rather than external wall causes; defendants had constructive knowledge or ought to have known and failed to take reasonable remedial steps, thus were liable in nuisance and negligence and bound by statutory and deed maintenance obligations; injunctive relief and damages were therefore awarded.
11 Aug 2017

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV229/2016

SC31 is to be construed as imposing on the grantee an obligation to maintain the paved way within the Brown Area and incidental structures required by the Regulations, but not to impose a general obligation to maintain man-made slopes on Government land formed outside the Brown Area; however the Tribunal erred in relation to SC13 by failing to address BA's case that SC13 could require ENM to maintain the whole of Feature 33(1), so that determination is quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
22 Oct 2015

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL14/2014

The court held that the Tribunal erred in law by construing 'appertain' (and thus 'belong') in Condition 6 as limited to features located within the leased lots; even if 'appertain' equals 'belong', the phrase covers features outside the lots that are part and parcel of, substantially connected to, or indispensable to the construction or survival of the buildings on the lots. The Tribunal's Decision was quashed and the appeal remitted for factual reassessment by a differently constituted Tribunal.
15 Sept 2015

GREEN & GRACE LTD v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WANG LUNG INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER

Citation

GREEN & GRACE LTD v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WANG LUNG INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM158/2014

The developer was held to have an unqualified exclusive right to use and enjoy the external walls under the DMC and the assignment; accordingly s.34H of the Building Management Ordinance applied, rendering DMC provisions that purported to relieve the developer of the maintenance obligation inconsistent and void, so the developer must bear repair costs and the applicant was not liable to contribute; consequently the registered Memorandum of Charge against the applicant was discharged.
10 Mar 2015

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN

Citation

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV146/2014

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to show that section 13 of the New Territories Ordinance applies to the compensation at issue; unlike Tang Che Tai the resumed lots were not imprinted with a Tong institution that would carry customary obligations into compensation, and the statutory definition of 'land' in the NTO does not include compensation or proceeds of sale, so Chinese custom could not be enforced against the compensation in this case.
19 Jun 2014

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN

Citation

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP315/2012

The court granted vesting orders for the non-resumed lots because the plaintiff, as the sole beneficial successor under Chinese customary succession, was entitled under s45 Trustee Ordinance; the resumed lots reverted to the Government under the Lands Resumption Ordinance so no vesting order could be made but immediately prior to resumption the plaintiff was the sole beneficial owner and is entitled to the assessed compensation; the defendant failed to prove the alleged family agreement and Chinese customary inheritance law does not apply to compensation monies after reversion to the Crown, t…