Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Owners' meeting resolutions

Legal area

Court

26 Aug 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WAI BUILDING (JAVA ROAD) v. HWA YAT KWAN ALICE

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1326
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2900/2023

The court held that the MRW Contribution and VO Contribution were validly approved by owners' resolutions and are enforceable under the DMC and BMO; the DMC entitles the plaintiff to charge the agreed interest and the $150 collection charge and the plaintiff's interest calculations were correct; the defendant's delay in filing the appeal was excused and time extended but the appeal on merits failed; new evidence was not admitted because it concerned matters existing at the hearing below and no special grounds were shown; the Master's costs assessment was not unreasonable; consequentially the…
20 Oct 2020

教育路福照樓業主立案法團對谷翠香

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 41
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM14/2019

The applicant proved on the balance of probabilities that valid owners' resolutions and deed provisions obliged the respondent, as owner of one thirty‑fourth share, to pay the apportioned maintenance charges and related fees; the s22(4) certificate and corroborating documents constituted sufficient prima facie evidence; the respondent's allegations were irrelevant or unsupported and did not negate liability, therefore judgment is entered for the applicant for the sums claimed together with interest and costs.
15 Nov 2018

MTR CORPORATION LTD 對梁智貞及另一人

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 76
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM179/2016

Manager (MTR) is not obliged to implement owners' general meeting resolutions absent express DMC provision; MTR's budgeting, apportionment and accounting for clubhouse income/deficit and presentation of budgets complied with the DMC; managers' remuneration is properly calculated on total actual expenditure (gross) including clubhouse-related expenditure; clubhouse may have separate accounts and a separate bank account is recommended but the inclusion of clubhouse deficits in Phase budgets is permissible; CNFA is not a common part as contended by the applicants and its ownership/management sta…
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v LAI TZE BIN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v LAI TZE BIN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM289/2014

The Tribunal held that the owners corporation had statutory power under s.14 and s.18(2)(fa) BMO and contractual authority under the DMC to carry out the resolved works and to require contributions; the renovation/improvement distinction is irrelevant after the 1998 amendment to s.18(2). The respondents were liable for the approved contributions and for the 5% surcharge and $150 collection fee under the DMC, but the unapproved 10% additional contingency charge was not recoverable.
13 Jul 2006

THE GRANDE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. SUN WAH ORNAMENT MANUFACTORY LTD

Citation

THE GRANDE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. SUN WAH ORNAMENT MANUFACTORY LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV2/2006

The Court held that the 2001 owners' resolutions validly sanctioned prior unauthorized renovation works and, provided the procedural requirements of clause 10 of the DMC were met and the resolutions were not contrary to the DMC, retrospective effect alone did not invalidate them; accordingly the 2001 resolutions were binding on all owners and judgment was entered for the Manager for the claimed sums with interest and costs.
13 Oct 2003

THE GRANDE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. SIEGONT LTD

Citation

THE GRANDE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. SIEGONT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ21516/2001

Judge found on balance that the 1997 notice was properly served and the 1997 resolution and September 2001 Resolution No.5 were valid; defendants failed to prove falsity or reliance on any negligent misrepresentation and many factual/legal arguments were barred by deficient pleadings; accordingly plaintiff entitled to judgment for the sums claimed and defendants' counterclaims dismissed.
2 Jul 2003

THE GRANDE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. BOLEX INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

THE GRANDE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. BOLEX INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM313/2002

The DMC expressly empowered the manager to maintain and improve common parts and to demand contributions recoverable by civil action; the renovation was approved by a properly convened owners' meeting and binding under the DMC despite abstentions; prior spending, alleged ulterior motives or non-disclosure did not invalidate the majority resolution; therefore the manager was entitled to recover the specified contributions and interest under the DMC.
2 Jul 2003

THE GRANDE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. SIEGONT LTD

Citation

THE GRANDE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. SIEGONT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM314/2002

The Tribunal held that the DMC expressly authorised the Applicant to carry out repair and improvement works and to demand contributions (Fourth Schedule paras 3 and 6(a); Clause 8(b)(i)); a resolution passed by a majority at a duly convened owners' meeting is binding (Fifth Schedule para 10); accordingly the levies approved and demanded were lawful and recoverable and the Applicant's claims succeed.
4 Jul 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CAMBRIDGE COURT v. TERESITA CECILIA BOTELHO

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CAMBRIDGE COURT v. TERESITA CECILIA BOTELHO
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM83/2002

The Tribunal held that the DMC reservations of roof use belonged to the First Owner which was dissolved on 5 February 1974, and that under the Building Management Ordinance roofs are common parts unless exclusively designated; consequently the roofs form common parts of Cambridge Court. The owners' resolution of 2 March 2001 to carry out and apportion the roof and rear-lane repairs was valid and binding under Clause 17(k) of the DMC, and the Respondent was liable to pay the apportioned contribution of $2,748. Costs were ordered against the Respondent (order nisi).