Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undivided shares

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2022

WINMARK PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. PRIME WAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 62
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS4000/2020

The Tribunal held that Bond Star addressed s3(2)(a) and does not automatically extend to s3(2)(b); s3(2)(b) permits averaging across two lots connected by a common staircase and such averaging can include a lot wholly owned by the applicant in appropriate circumstances. Applying the law to the agreed facts, Lots 3 and 4 (now 100% owned) cannot remain as subjects under Cap.545 and are dismissed; the application may proceed in respect of Lot 1 and Lot 2 because the averaging under s3(2)(b) yields the required statutory percentage for those two lots.
3 Aug 2021

PIERHEAD GARDEN MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PIERHEAD GARDEN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2161
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA559/2013

Defendant's application to vary the costs order nisi is refused; the original costs order nisi is varied to specify the plaintiff is entitled to 80% of the costs of its claim including two specified reserved costs with certificate for two counsel, no order as to costs for defendant's defence and counterclaim, and costs to be taxed if not agreed; plaintiff awarded costs of the variation applications with certificate for junior counsel only.
24 Jun 2016

GROUP LEADER LTD AND OTHERS v. HUI SUN FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

GROUP LEADER LTD AND OTHERS v. HUI SUN FAT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/2015

The Court held the Director's contention that s.8(1) encompasses non‑proprietary rights was unsustainable because the statutory definition in s.8(6) confines 'rights of any prior owner' to rights arising from ownership of an undivided share which affect the lot; therefore the Director's grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal was refused; consequently the separate market value issue need not be determined by this Court.
18 Dec 2014

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING v. CHOW CHUI CHUI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING v. CHOW CHUI CHUI AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM108/2013

The Main Deed of Mutual Covenant allocated specific undivided shares to units (one undivided share per defined unit/floor); subsequent subdivisions created by separate assignments and Sub-DMCs do not alter the number of units for the purposes of Schedule 11 and do not bind owners under the Main DMC; therefore the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal is dismissed and a stay of execution is refused.
16 Nov 2012

LEAD TRADERS LTD v. LUCKY LAND ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEAD TRADERS LTD v. LUCKY LAND ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV219/2011

Leave to appeal was refused and the Notices of Motion dismissed because the questions did not raise issues of great general or public importance and were not reasonably arguable; the Notice's s2 definition of 'unit' is by reference to undivided shares and does not require physical partition, and alleged breaches of DMCs do not affect the validity of registered allocations of undivided shares.
7 Nov 2007

CHAN KAR MUN CARMEN AND ANOTHER v. CHINA STEP CORPORATION LTD

Citation

CHAN KAR MUN CARMEN AND ANOTHER v. CHINA STEP CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP194/2007

The Assent vested the one‑fourteenth undivided share associated with the 7th floor and roof and carried with it, at law, the exclusive right to the roof; the subsequent 1989 and 1994 Assignments conveyed that undivided share (and its appurtenant rights) to the plaintiffs, therefore the plaintiffs hold good legal title to the 7th floor and roof and have satisfactorily answered the purchaser's requisitions.
2 Dec 1999

JUMBO KING LTD v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

JUMBO KING LTD v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/1999

On the true construction of the DMC and sub-DMC the developer’s undivided shares carried exclusive occupation rights in the disputed utility rooms and roof spaces which could validly be assigned with undivided shares; clauses 18(e) and 19 (and clause 10 time limit) in the sale agreement validly allocated the risk of unauthorised structures to the purchaser absent evidence of vendor’s actual knowledge or concealment; purchaser’s objections were without substance and were time-barred, therefore rescission and refund of the further deposit was not justified and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Aug 1999

The Incorporated Owners of Hing Hon Building v. Leung Kam Wah

Citation

The Incorporated Owners of Hing Hon Building v. Leung Kam Wah
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM145/1999

Contributions must be fixed in accordance with the DMC where the DMC so provides (flat per unit only for items expressly listed in Clause 10(c)); for items not so provided the apportionment must follow the respective undivided shares under s22(2) of the Building Management Ordinance; Clause 12(j)(iii) does not allow majority resolutions to override the DMC or the statutory scheme.
12 Feb 1999

JUMBO KING LTD. v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

JUMBO KING LTD. v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV180/1998

Appeal allowed: the Court held that the vendors could validly assign exclusive use of the utility rooms and flat roofs as incidents of their undivided shares under Clause 4(ii) of the Sub-Deed; the utility rooms were not common areas (and in any event that objection was raised out of time); the purchaser's complaint about unauthorised cocklofts was barred by clause 18(e) and by the purchaser's failure to raise timely requisitions, so the purchaser wrongfully repudiated the contract.
9 Jul 1998

JUMBO KING LTD. v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

JUMBO KING LTD. v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP160/1998

Court held purchaser entitled to rescind effective 14 November 1997 because certain utility rooms and flat roofs forming part of the properties had no undivided shares referable to them and therefore could not validly be assigned; that defect was fundamental and not susceptible to remedy by completion, and the relevant requisition was raised in time, entitling immediate rescission without waiting to completion.