Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unauthorised structures

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2025

LAW CHI FAI v. MEYER PROPERTIES LTD in its own capacity and for and on behalf of all registered owners of the landed property known as Meyer Industrial Building, Nos. 380-382, Kwun Tong Road & No.2 Chong Yip Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1042
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ663/2022

Given the Building Department ultimatum and risk of prosecution, the balance of convenience justified the interlocutory relief; the plaintiff failed to resolve the BD Order and only complied after the summons was issued, therefore the plaintiff must pay the costs of and occasioned by the summons (including paper disposal).
31 Jan 2024

KEENRICH TRADING LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 11
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2022

The Tribunal preferred Ms Ng's more conservative comparable adjustments in combination with the Tribunal's own location and adjustment determinations, adopted multiplication of adjustments, accepted a unit rate of HK$255,000 per sq m based on weighting of comparables (with emphasis on the closest and most proximate transaction), deducted HK$10,000 for reinstatement of an unauthorised cockloft and determined market value as 56.49 sq m × HK$255,000 − HK$10,000 = HK$14,394,950 (rounded and awarded as HK$14,400,000).
15 Mar 2023

香港特別行政區訴謝玉雯及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 775
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA473/2018

The Building Authority validly issued and effected service of a s24(1) removal order; the structure was an unauthorised new addition not exempt under s41; policy considerations do not invalidate a valid statutory order; appellants were aware of the order and failed to comply or take lawful remedial steps, so no reasonable excuse existed — therefore convictions and penalties were correctly imposed and are upheld.
10 Oct 2022

有關 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WAI BUILDING, JAVA ROAD 的事宜

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1071
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ360/2020

Court found on the evidence (fact witnesses and admissible expert opinion) that unauthorised additions and modifications existed on the B3 platform (partition with metal supports, iron railings and metal roofing, and a re‑routed PVC rainwater pipe concealed under tiles), those works either pierced or materially accelerated deterioration of the 1st floor waterproofing and altered drainage causing prolonged sub‑surface water accumulation and eventual leakage to Unit 12; the B3 owners are bound by DMC covenants regardless of when the works were erected and are liable to contribute to the incorpo…
6 Nov 2019

LAM KIN CHING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 64
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2018

Tribunal accepted most comparables advanced by the Respondent, rejected most of the Applicants' comparables except the common comparable, adopted a 1/6 rate for open yard, applied size and frontage adjustments (2.5% per 10 m2 for first 100 m2 then 1% per 10 m2 thereafter), adopted a headroom adjustment of 4% per metre, weighted the common comparable double, derived an adjusted unit rate of HK$218,895 per m2 and applied it to the agreed saleable area 152.78 m2 to determine market value of HK$33,443,000; Respondent ordered to pay that sum as compensation.
27 Jan 2017

WONG WAI YIP v. HO WAI FUNG

Citation

WONG WAI YIP v. HO WAI FUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2221/2015

The purchaser's requisition was sufficiently precise; on evidence (including unchallenged expert report) Shop E1 appears to be an unauthorised conversion creating a bolt on title; the vendor failed to discharge the high burden of proving no real risk of enforcement and failed to answer the requisition satisfactorily; therefore the Defendant's title is defective, the sale is repudiated and the Plaintiff is entitled to return of the deposit, reimbursement of stamp duty and costs.
5 Apr 2016

JOIN UNION INVESTMENT LTD v. CHINA TREE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

JOIN UNION INVESTMENT LTD v. CHINA TREE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1126/2013

The Illegal Structure Clause in the earlier provisional agreement was not incorporated into the Formal Agreement and rectification was refused because the parties and solicitors had agreed and executed the Formal Agreement omitting the clause; the plaintiff's post-title requisitions were out of time under clause 10(a) and the defendant did not unequivocally waive that time-bar; the Partition Clause only covered the two sub-shops B1/B2 and the Supplemental Agreement was insufficiently clear to shift the risk of the cockloft to the purchaser; although the defendant knew of the cockloft, the coc…
29 Mar 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TONE KING BUILDING v. TOPGLEE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TONE KING BUILDING v. TOPGLEE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM266/2014

The Tribunal found a deliberate breach of the DMC by installation of 27 unauthorised air-conditioning frames and devices; the 5 September email was an attempted application but was incomplete and no formal application was placed before the management committee; given the Buildings Department's 2013 Building Order and legitimate safety concerns, damages would be inadequate and injunctive relief was warranted. Consequently the Tribunal ordered mandatory removal of the 27 devices and repair of affected parts, refused exemplary damages, and made specific costs orders (split, taxed at District Cou…
9 Nov 2010

SOUND INDUSTRIAL LTD v. KIM YI PROPERTY AGENCY LTD

Citation

SOUND INDUSTRIAL LTD v. KIM YI PROPERTY AGENCY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3222/2008

No general duty of care was established that would require the estate agent to confirm absence of unauthorised structures; furthermore the lease plan and as-is clauses showed the floor extension was not part of the leased premises and the plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance or a compensable misrepresentation, therefore the claim fails.
24 Jun 2010

PROFIT WORLD TRADING LTD v. HO SO YUNG

Citation

PROFIT WORLD TRADING LTD v. HO SO YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP8/2009

The court held that the vendor could not give good title to the glass-roofed area and enlarged sitting room because of encroachment and thus committed a repudiatory breach entitling the purchaser to accept termination and recover deposits; however the purchaser could not rely on a late requisition about the encroachment because the defect was patent and discoverable by due diligence (viewing the assignment plan), yet the purchaser's failure to raise timely requisitions did not constitute a waiver of the right to insist that the vendor give good title at completion.