Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Management agreement

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2023

YAU SUK KOK JEAN v. KL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 46
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM139/2021

Clause 18(e) of the DMC must be read with the DMC as a whole and requires an Owners' Meeting resolution as a precondition for the Manager to lawfully demand, collect or receive contributions to Special Fund(s); absent an OM resolution the respondent was not entitled under the DMC to request, collect or receive the sums in the 1 March 2021 and 27 January 2022 debit notes; declaratory relief was appropriate and granted on both debit notes and costs were awarded nisi to applicant.
27 Sept 2021

EVERGREEN HONG KONG INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TREGUNTER PROTECH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1111
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2256/2018

On the balance of probabilities the source(s) of the proven seepage (EDB, STOR, DC and SH; DR previously) were defects in Subject Common Parts (Common Roof, external walls and waterproofing membrane) under the jurisdiction of the incorporated owners/manager; the 1st and 2nd Defendants failed to discharge their maintenance obligations under the Deeds and BMO and were liable in nuisance; mandatory injunction directing replacement of the waterproofing membrane and specified repairs and an award of repair costs and costs followed.
28 May 2021

CHENG SING KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KA HAY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2164/2013

Plaintiffs failed to establish proprietary estoppel, implied grant or that the 2005/2006 Deeds conferred vehicular rights; the 2006 Deed did not cover the whole route and could not be construed to create the vehicular easement claimed; the 2005 Deed was a grant to Sino Favour only; necessity did not apply; plaintiffs have a pedestrian easement over the Main Gate (Lots 485RP, 482P and 482O) but no vehicular easement; the 12th defendant's counterclaim for management fees failed because the 2006 Management Agreement required written authorisation from the MAC to commence legal proceedings and no…
18 Jun 2014

CHEVALIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GLORIOUS GARDEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEVALIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GLORIOUS GARDEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP739/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success; he had knowingly entered into the consent summons and challenging the original injunction is not a proper basis to set aside a consent order absent recognized grounds such as fraud or mutual mistake.
16 Apr 2012

DIE UKW HONG KONG LTD v. FAN KAM HON

Citation

DIE UKW HONG KONG LTD v. FAN KAM HON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2524/2011

The defendant established arguable defences and raised multiple triable issues — notably uncertainty whether director's remuneration was paid or set off, misallocation of a $113,111.25 dividend, and lack of direct evidence from the controlling director — such that summary judgment was inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend must be granted.
8 May 2009

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUEN WAN GARDEN v. PRIME LIGHT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUEN WAN GARDEN v. PRIME LIGHT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1516/2003

The court held that the DMC and the MA are interrelated and reconcilable; the MA qualifies the general obligations in the DMC and its deduction provisions apply. The plaintiff's calculation ignored MA deductions and the plaintiff failed to prove compliance with the Building Management Ordinance by producing contemporaneous budgets; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for outstanding management fees was dismissed, save for the admitted WR2 contribution which judgment was entered for.
14 Jun 2007

TAM SHUK YIN, ANNY v. CHOI KWOK CHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

TAM SHUK YIN, ANNY v. CHOI KWOK CHAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2399/2004

The petitioner established unfairly prejudicial conduct by the 1st respondent in relation to Active Team, Advance Wise, Wise Apex and Richmond based on persistent failure to supply and rectify accounting records, wrongful refusal to perform the Bonus Agreement, diversion and non-payment of rent to Richmond, refusal to revise the Management Agreement despite material changes and other obstructive conduct; the court granted declaratory and monetary reliefs, ordered accounting adjustments, directed valuations on the petition date (17 September 2004), awarded interest from petition presentation,…
4 Aug 2005

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN Compulsory Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN Compulsory Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW50/2000

The court found the liquidators had established a bona fide and reasonable need under section 221 for the production of documents and the oral examination of named individuals because the Grande respondents and Toyo were substantially involved in the management and transactions of the Companies; the scope and time‑limit were confined (specified entities and period) and the respondents had not established that they lacked possession, control or knowledge or that disclosure would be oppressive; accordingly the revised draft order (with modifications on time for compliance and document period) w…
18 May 2001

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. H.H. WONG INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD. v. H.H. WONG INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9516/2000

On the evidence the plaintiff had been continually loss‑making and had been advanced funds (including a specific short term advance of about 1.6 million by the holding company) to cover management and ferry deficits; the claims sued for represent reimbursement of those advances and partly remuneration due to the plaintiff; the contractual collection charge of $300 is recoverable and registration expenses are recoverable as damages under the DMC; interest and indemnity costs were appropriate and awarded as set out in the judgment.
2 Aug 2000

The Incorporated Owners Of Tsuen Wan Garden v. Sky Pacific Property Consultant Ltd.

Citation

The Incorporated Owners Of Tsuen Wan Garden v. Sky Pacific Property Consultant Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM102/2000

The Deed of Mutual Covenant (clause 5 and the Third Schedule) is the instrument binding on owners and prevails over inconsistent provisions of the Management Agreement; therefore clause 5 and the Third Schedule of the DMC override clauses 3 and 4(a) of the MA.