Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Registration and discharge of charges

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM500/2001

The applicant calculated contributions contrary to the Deed of Mutual Covenant; Building Orders do not override the DMC allocation; respondents validly objected to the calculations and therefore the applicant's claim for sums secured by charges failed and the charges must be discharged.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM505/2001

Contributions were not calculated in accordance with the Deed of Mutual Covenant as required by section 22(1) of the Building Management Ordinance; the Applicant failed to establish a legal basis to depart from the DMC merely because works were required by Building Orders, therefore the claim based on the incorrect apportionment fails and charges registered on respondents' properties must be discharged.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM501/2001

The Tribunal found the Applicant calculated contributions on an incorrect basis contrary to the DMC; because the contributions were not calculated in accordance with the DMC and respondents had objected, the Applicant's claim failed and the charges registered against respondents' properties must be discharged.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM514/2001

The tribunal found the Applicant failed to calculate contributions in accordance with the Deed of Mutual Covenant and there was no legal basis to treat Building Orders as displacing the DMC allocation; because the contributions were not fixed on the correct contractual basis and respondents objected, the Applicant's claim failed and any charges based on those calculations must be discharged.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM498/2001

The Applicant failed to show a lawful basis to depart from the apportionment rules in the Deed of Mutual Covenant; contributions were not calculated on the correct basis under the DMC and thus the claim for sums secured by charges failed. Proxy and meeting irregularity claims lacked evidential support and, where raised late after works and payments, were estopped. Therefore the charges registered to secure the contested contributions must be discharged and vacated.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM506/2001

Judge found that the contributions were not calculated in accordance with the Deed of Mutual Covenant, that Building Orders do not override the DMC apportionment provisions, and that respondents were estopped or failed to prove irregularity in proxies or majority; therefore the Applicant's claim failed and the charges registered against respondents' properties must be discharged and vacated.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM511/2001

Contributions must be fixed according to the DMC and the Applicant failed to show that the Building Orders or section 22(2) provided a legal basis to override or displace the DMC apportionment; because contributions were not calculated on the correct contractual basis and Respondents objected, the Applicant's claim failed and the charges registered against Respondents' properties had to be discharged.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM513/2001

The Applicant failed to calculate contributions in accordance with the deed of mutual covenant and did not establish any lawful basis (including under the Building Management Ordinance) to override the DMC; therefore the claim for contributions and the charges based on those calculations were unlawful and must be dismissed and discharged.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM504/2001

Because the contributions were not calculated in accordance with the deed of mutual covenant and the Applicant failed to establish a lawful basis for overriding the DMC by relying solely on Building Orders, the Applicant's claims based on those calculations fail and the charges based on them must be discharged.