SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HK)(HKLdT) 11

LDBM 76/2019

[2024] HKLdT 67

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO.76 OF 2019

___________________

BETWEEN

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HUNG WAI BUILDING
(鴻威大廈業主立案法團)
Applicant
and
SUNNY ELEGANT LIMITED
(旭彩有限公司)
1 st Respondent
YU CHUNG MAN (余鐘文) 2 nd Respondent
TASTY CREATION LIMITED
(創鮮有限公司) trading as
海中寶海鮮舫
3 rd Respondent
MAK CREATIVE LIMITED
trading as AMPLIFIER RESTAURANT
4 th Respondent

___________________

Before: Deputy District Judge S. H. Lee, Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal, in Court
Date of Hearing : 7 August 2024
Date of Decision: 13 August 2024

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1. This Decision deals with 2 summonses filed by the 4 respondents ( 4 Rs ) arising from my Judgment handed down on 6 June 2024 after trial of this application and counterclaim ( the Judgment ) [1] . The same expressions and abbreviations in the Judgment are adopted in this Decision.

2. The first summons filed on 3 July 2024 is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal ( the Leave Application ). The proposed grounds of appeal are set out in 7 th Affirmation of Wong Kam Mun filed on the even date ( 7 th Affirmation ).

3. The second summons filed also on 3 July 2024 is an application for stay of execution of the Judgment pending appeal ( the Stay Application ). It was supported by 6 th Affirmation of Wong Kam Mun filed on the even date ( 6 th Affirmation ).

4. Ms Vivian Li of counsel ( Ms Li ) appeared on behalf of 4 Rs on both summonses before this Tribunal.

5. Ms Becky Wong of counsel ( Ms Wong ) appearing for IO opposed both summonses. In the event the Stay Applicatin is allowed, Ms Wong asked that suitable conditions be imposed by this Tribunal.

Discussion

Overview of the Judgment

6. The 5 parties to this application litigated over two groups of areas of the Building set out in section C1 of the Judgment: -

(1) 1/F level of the External Wall facing West; and

(2) the Disputed Areas on its G/F and 1/F levels, consisting of a) the Entrance Space, b) the Staircases, c) the Stair Landing, d) the Corridor, and e) the Toilets as defined in the Judgment .

7. As I found in the Judgment, at all material times, R3 and R4 (tenants of R2) carries on their respective businesses of the Chinese Restaurant and the Caf




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top