Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Validity of resolutions

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2024

LAU MAN WAI JOSEPH AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG SUN LING SANNY, the Administratrix of the Estate of KWAN YAU HANG, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1013/2011

Given the findings in the 2015 Judgment and subsequent rulings, the Traditionalists Camp were not justified in their conduct and insistence on a proviso that prevented early settlement; therefore they must pay the costs of the Reformists Camp and the Secretary for Justice up to and after the 2015 Judgment, and the Koon should not be ordered to pay because the disputes were personal between the camps.
20 Dec 2019

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAM MAN FUNG FACTORY BUILDING v. CHEWY INTERNATIONAL FOODS LTD

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 69
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM67/2018

Clause 12 of the DMC does not exempt the owner of the Lower Ground Floor and the car parking spaces on the Ground and Car Park floors from contributions to the non‑recurrent replacement costs of Lifts No.1 and No.2; the General Meeting and MC resolutions authorizing replacement were not inconsistent with the DMC; contributions for the replacement works are to be calculated by undivided shares under BMO s22(2); the respondent is liable for HKD 198,000 (120/1000 of HKD 1,650,000) and interest and costs as ordered.
11 Sept 2015

FOO TAK CHING v. TANG MAN KIT

Citation

FOO TAK CHING v. TANG MAN KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3361/2014

The originating summons was dismissed because the Delivery up Resolution was invalid: it rested on an unproven removal of the manager and the crucial 2nd Notice did not give adequate notice (it was not published) to all members amid unresolved membership uncertainty, and the OS did not properly plead a cause of action sufficient to support the unpleaded relief sought.
2 Sept 2015

LAU MAN WAI JOSEPH AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG SUN LING SANNY, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF KWAN YAU HANG, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU MAN WAI JOSEPH AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG SUN LING SANNY, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF KWAN YAU HANG, DECEASED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1013/2011

The court held that the Board acted ultra vires in imposing the 70% attendance requirement and that the Termination Resolution expelling 22 plaintiffs was unlawful because (1) the Board was not properly constituted when the resolution was passed, (2) the Board lacked a proper jurisdictional basis under Art 9.2 to terminate membership on the grounds relied upon, and (3) the Termination Resolution was passed in breach of principles of natural justice.
4 Sept 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 Tribunal held that for the purpose of computing quorum under the BMO the Main DMC determines the number of flats: the non-domestic portion comprised four flats. Sub-DMCs that subdivide only part of the building do not alter the Main DMC enumeration or create additional 'flats' for Schedule 11 purposes. The valid count of owners present was therefore 5 and the required 10% quorum (8) was not met; the 4 August Resolutions are null and void and the substitute MC has no entitlement to IO property.
3 Aug 2007

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUEN WAN GARDEN v. PRIME LIGHT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TSUEN WAN GARDEN v. PRIME LIGHT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM56/2006

The 2nd Resolution is void because it purportedly established a contingency fund under s20 BMO without complying with s21(4) and the Fifth Schedule (no budget prepared) and because the DMC already provided for apportionment so contributions should have been fixed under the DMC; the 1st Resolution (fixed under the DMC pursuant to the owners' 2005 Resolution) remains effective and entitles the Applicant to recover HKD 1,675,043.50 plus interest and costs.
30 May 2007

LEUNG CHI TUNG v. AU YEUNG FAN AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG CHI TUNG v. AU YEUNG FAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW504/2005

No consensual agreement was proved; respondents had acquiesced to earlier connected transactions so the company could not claim recovery of those profits; the attempts to exclude the Petitioner from management were conduct unfairly prejudicial under s168A; winding‑up refused; remedy is an order that the 1st and 2nd Respondents purchase the Petitioner's shares with valuation dated 21 May 2005 and specific valuation directions.
23 Jan 2007

HUI KWOK WAH v. HUANG HSIN YANG AND OTHERS

Citation

HUI KWOK WAH v. HUANG HSIN YANG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1744/2006

Resolutions passed at Grand Palace's 12 December 2005 EGM are invalid because the meeting was inquorate under AA Article 23 (members present held only 50% of paid‑up share capital); subsequent participation in other inquorate meetings did not amount to waiver or estoppel of the quorum requirement.
2 Jun 2006

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WINNER BUILDING v. LEUNG NGOK WING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WINNER BUILDING v. LEUNG NGOK WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7564/1999

The court held that despite a technical defect in the mode of service under the Third Schedule, the owners had actual notice and waived the irregularity; the resolutions (including the external wall tiles option) were either set forth in the notice or ancillary to matters so set forth and were unambiguous; the works constituted maintenance and were within powers under the DMC; the contractual interest clause was enforceable; accordingly judgment entered for the plaintiff for the amounts claimed with interest and costs.
6 Sept 2005

OVER & ABOVE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NIN FUNG BUILDING, HOMANTIN

Citation

OVER & ABOVE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NIN FUNG BUILDING, HOMANTIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA932/2005

Proper service was proved, the defendant did not file a notice of intention to defend and must be taken to have admitted the allegations; the plaintiff cannot obtain the fullest justice (repayment of contributions) without the declaratory relief, and accordingly the court will grant declarations and a monetary award for repayments with interest as sought, subject to reserved costs.