|
LDBM 29/2020
[2024] HKLdT 4
IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2020
__________________
|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
The Incorporated Owners of
|
Applicant
|
|
|
Wing Fai Building
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
Chan Yun Choi (陳潤財)
|
1
st
Respondent
|
|
|
Ko Kit Mui (高潔梅)
|
2
nd
Respondent
|
_________________
|
Before:
|
Deputy District Judge S. H. Lee,
|
|
|
Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal, in Court
|
|
Date of Hearing:
|
19 December 2023
|
|
Date of Decision:
|
30 January 2024
|
_________________________
DECISION ON COSTS
_________________________
1.
This application was tried before me in April and May 2023. On 17 November 2023, I handed down my judgment (
the Judgment
)
[1]
whereby I ordered that: -
(1) IO’s claim against the 2 Rs for damages in sum of $214,000 for increased costs of waterproofing works be dismissed; and
(2) Mandatory injunction be granted that the 2 Rs do within 60 days remove Alterations A & B (including reinstating Former Door A at Point A and restoring former wall at Point B) in line with 18/F plan of Approved Plans of the Building
[2]
.
2.
In addition, I made a costs order nisi in the Judgment that 30% of IO’s costs of this application, including 30% of all reserved costs and 30% of IO’s costs of this trial together with certificate of counsel, be paid by 2 Rs to IO to be taxed at District Court scale if not agreed (
CO Nisi
)
[3]
.
The Application
3.
On 30 November 2023, the 2 Rs took out an interlocutory application to vary CO Nisi (
the
Application
) and offered 3 alternative costs orders in lieu (
the 3 Alternatives
).
4.
IO opposed all the 3 Alternatives and sought to make CO Nisi absolute.
5.
Pursuant to my directions, R1 have filed and served his 2 affirmations on 6 and 13 December 2023 in support of (and Mr Ng Ka Ki on behalf of IO has filed an affirmation on 11 December 2023 opposing) the Application.
6.
Trial counsels for the 2 Rs (i.e. Mr Ng) and for the IO (i.e. Ms Tse) appeared at the hearing of the Application and they have lodged their respective skeleton submissions in advance of the said hearing.
The Judgment
7.
The subject matters in dispute are 6 building works that had been carried out at 18/F and roof of the Building. They fall within two groups: -
(1) the 3 UBWs i.e. Item 1 (or Reduced Item 1), Item 2 and Item 3 at 18/F and roof of the Building (these 3 works were grouped together because they were subject matter of the 8/2019 Order and the 11/2020 Order issued by BD, as the case may be); and
(2) the 3 Alterations i.e. Alteration A, Alteration B and Alteration C made to 18/F common parts of the Building at Point A, Point B and Point C respectively.
8.
IO began this application in May 2020, after the 2 Rs have failed, inter alia, to accede to IO’s Letter before Action
| 
Back
