LDBM 83/2022

[2025] HKLdT 1

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO 83 OF 2022

___________________

BETWEEN

___________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

APPLICATION

1. This is the Respondent’s application dated 27 June 2024 for leave to appeal against the Judgment handed down by this Tribunal on 3 June 2024 [1] (“Judgment”).

THE ISSUE

2. The only material issue at trial concerned the interpretation of the Deed of Mutual Covenant dated 1 December 1976 (“DMC”) on the calculation of the Applicant’s contribution to the expenses of the maintenance works of King Po Mansion (“Building”) in the sum of HK$7,763,544 (“Expenses”). The question is whether the Expenses should be divided by 76 units in equal shares (as alleged by the Applicant) or by 110 units in equal shares (as alleged by the Respondent) for the purpose of forming the basis for calculation of the Applicant’s share of contribution.

3. There has been no dispute that the apportionment of contribution obligations for the Expenses is governed by clause 4(f) of the DMC (“Clause 4(f)”), which reads: -

“(f) the following expenses: -

…..

shall be paid and contributed on demand of the Manager by the owners for the time being of the said Building in proportion to the units owned by them respectively.”

The crux of the argument between the parties focuses on what exactly “the units” of Clause 4(f) refer to, which provides the basis for apportionment of the contribution to the expenses falling within the ambit of Clause 4(f) (“Clause 4(f) Expenses”)

4. The Applicant says that “the units” refer to the “units” set out in the First Schedule of the DMC (“First Schedule”) (“A’s Interpretation”). As the First Schedule has listed out 76 units for the whole Building with the whole first floor (“First Floor”) being regarded as 1 unit, the whole First Floor should be responsible for a 1/76 share of the Expenses, in the sum of HK$102,152 (HK$7,763,544/ 76). Since the First Floor has been partitioned into 7 premises after the registration of the DMC at the Land Registry, the Applicant, being the legal owner of Flat D on the First Floor (“A’s Premises”), holding 2 out of the 18 undivided shares allocated to the First Floor as registered in the Land Registry, should only be responsible for HK$11,350 (HK$102,152 x 2/18) (“A’s Calculation”).

5. At trial and in the draft Notice of Appeal of the present application, the Respondent disagreed and propounded three interpretations of Clause 4(f), arguing that “the units” refer to 110 units, 108 units or 94 units. At the hearing of this leave application, the Respondent expressly abandoned its arguments relating to 108 units and 94 units [2] , leaving its interpretation of the “units” to 110 units.

6. The Respondent now confirms that this leave application is based on a sole ground of appeal that this tribunal erred in wrongly interpreting Clause 4(f) to the effect that the Expen