Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sinking fund

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING, BLOCK C, KAM PING STREET v. SO HUNG SUN

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING, BLOCK C, KAM PING STREET v. SO HUNG SUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA70/2015

Leave to appeal was granted because there was a real and arguable issue whether the tribunal allowed amendments or accepted claims for periods beyond the original pleading without proper authorization, resulting in a potentially incorrect judgment amount that justified appellate scrutiny.
6 Jul 2005

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV400/2003

The Court refused to vary the orders nisi as to costs except to declare that the costs of the trial are to be taxed on the High Court Scale; applicants were held to be substantially successful on liability to protect common parts and to recover misapplied sinking fund monies, justifying costs in their favour for the trial, but the Court exercised discretion not to alter the broader costs orders and made no order as to costs of the applications themselves.
6 Jul 2005

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2003

The Court exercised its discretion to leave the orders nisi as made in the main judgment largely undisturbed because the applicants were substantially successful on establishing their legal rights and recovery of misapplied funds; the applicants' application to have costs of the trial taxed on the High Court Scale was allowed; respondents' applications to vary costs orders were refused; no order as to costs of these variation applications was made.
11 May 2001

Gallium Development Ltd. and Another v. Winning Properties Management Ltd. and Another

Citation

Gallium Development Ltd. and Another v. Winning Properties Management Ltd. and Another
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM121/2000

The summons under Rule 18 was dismissed because there were no agreed or admitted facts that the listed resolutions had in fact been passed; without such factual foundation the Tribunal could not apply clause 4(5) of the Seventh Schedule or clause 27(1) of the DMC and therefore Rule 18 was inapplicable.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING, BLOCK C, KAM PING STREET v. SO HUNG SUN

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Gallium Development Ltd. and Another v. Winning Properties Management Ltd. and Another