Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination of manager

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2022

TAI CHEUNG MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUEN MUN CENTRAL SQUARE

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 3
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM49/2021

Clause 12(A)(a) of the DMC provides a legitimate, alternative mechanism to terminate the DMC manager; paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 7 is permissive and not the exclusive means of termination. Because clause 12(A)(a) does not frustrate the legislative purpose of Schedule 7 and in fact makes termination easier for owners, it is not inconsistent with Schedule 7 and therefore is effective to terminate the applicant's appointment.
28 Apr 2016

SMART ESSENCE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

SMART ESSENCE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA450/2016

Clause 71(b) of the DMC only becomes applicable where there has been a sale/assignment of part units giving rise to a sub‑deed (ie a third co‑owner/sub‑DMC); an assignment of the whole Commercial/Car Park Accommodation did not trigger clause 71(b) so the 27/11/2015 and 27/1/2016 meetings were not validly held under clause 71(b); even if clause 71(b)/Schedule 8 applied the quorum calculation could result in one owner being sufficient in this two‑owner estate, but clause 33(b) requires a three months' notice of termination to be served by the Owners Committee and the 30/11/2015 notice was inval…
26 Jan 2006

PLENTY INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HENG NGAI JEWELRY CENTRE

Citation

PLENTY INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HENG NGAI JEWELRY CENTRE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6285/2005

District Court held it has concurrent jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' rights arose from the DMC (including terms incorporated by section 34E BMO) and not solely from the BMO; there were serious questions to be tried and the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo to prevent a fait accompli, therefore an interim injunction restraining the IO from taking steps to appoint a new manager until the Adjourned Hearing was granted; jurisdictional strike-out applications for want of jurisdiction were dismissed.
10 Mar 2005

RIGHTOP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU TSUI SHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

RIGHTOP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU TSUI SHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2691/2001

The court held that the Sub‑DMC governed the EGM and that BMO Schedules VII and VIII did not apply to a sub‑deed regulating a discrete part of a building; the chop/stamp impressions on proxies sufficed for authentication and, in any event, exclusion of contested proxies would not defeat the majority for removal under DMC/Sub‑DMC provisions; late lodgement and votes of delinquent owners did not invalidate the resolution; consequently the termination was valid and the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages.
21 Oct 2004

嘉居樂物業管理有限公司 v. 家安花園業主立案法團

Citation

嘉居樂物業管理有限公司 v. 家安花園業主立案法團
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM188/2004

The tribunal held that paragraph 7(5A) allows owners liable to pay to vote even if in arrears, but the proxy instrument for Billion China did not bear an embossment of the common seal and so was invalid under paragraph 4(2) of the Third Schedule; consequently the resolution had support below the required 50% and was therefore invalid, so the Applicant's appointment was not terminated.

Hong Kong Case Law

TAI CHEUNG MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUEN MUN CENTRAL SQUARE

SMART ESSENCE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

PLENTY INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HENG NGAI JEWELRY CENTRE

RIGHTOP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU TSUI SHEUNG AND ANOTHER

嘉居樂物業管理有限公司 v. 家安花園業主立案法團