Wing Hong Investment Co Ltd v. Fung Sok Han and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCA 2075/2009 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 September 2015.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 2075/2009
Court
High Court CFI
Date25 Sep 2015
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 2075/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2075 OF 2009

____________

BETWEEN

  WING HONG INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

  FUNG SOK HAN 1st Defendant
  THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BLOCKS A & B OF IMPERIAL COURT, 79 WATERLOO ROAD, KOWLOON 2nd Defendant
  THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BLOCKS C & D OF IMPERIAL COURT, 79 WATERLOO ROAD, KOWLOON 3rd Defendant
  THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BLOCKS E, F, G & H OF IMPERIAL COURT, 79 WATERLOO ROAD, KOWLOON 4th Defendant

____________

Before: Hon L Chan J in Court
Dates of Hearing: 21-24, 27-29 May and 10 December 2013
Date of Judgment: 25 September 2015

_______________

CORRIGENDUM

_______________

Page 53, Paragraph 155 Line H:

I hold that this room is a common area.” should be changed to “I hold that this room is not a common area.

Page 54, Paragraph 159 Line L:

A building order was also issued by the Buildings Department dated 29 July 2009 (C545) requiring restoration.” should be changed to “A building order was also issued by the Buildings Department dated 23 July 2009 (C545) requiring restoration.

Page 73, Paragraph 244 Lines D to F:

I find that the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff’s alterations on the ground floor for converting the carport into shops and godowns did not affect and was not likely to affect the supply of electricity to Imperial Court.” should be changed to “I find that the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff’s alterations on the ground floor for converting the carport into shops and godowns did affect and was likely to affect the supply of electricity to Imperial Court.

Page 83, Paragraph 260 Lines M to N:

… the Buildings Department officers had inspected the gate(s) in the evening of 15 May 2009, …” should be changed to “… the Buildings Department officers had inspected the gate(s) in the evening of 17 May 2009, …

Page 84, Paragraph 263 Lines M to N:

The 1st defendant admitted that she had instructed workers to take down the gate in the night before.” should be changed to “The 1st defendant admitted that she had instructed workers to take down the gate in the morning of 10 August 2009.

Page 105, Paragraph 339 Lines L to M:

… the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants cannot reply on the letter dated 18 September 2012 …” should be changed to “… the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants cannot rely on the letter dated 18 September 2012 …

Page 108, Paragraph 348 Lines N to O:

She then waited for PW3 and both of them went to check the gate.” should be changed to “She then waited for DW2 and both of them went to check the gate.

  (William K P Chong)
  Clerk to Hon L Chan J

Dated the 6th day of January 2016