The Incorporated Owners of San Po Kong Mansion v. on Rich (HK) Investment Ltd

HCA 557/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 557 OF 2013

________________________

________________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Douglas Lam SC in Court

Dates of Hearing: 6 – 8 and 10 March 2017

Dates of Further Written Submissions: 12 and 19 September 2017

Date of Judgment: 27 October 2017

Date of Corrigendum: 1 November 2017

____________________

C O R R I G E N D U M

____________________

Please note the following corrigendum in the Judgment dated 27 October 2017:

1.Paragraph 22 be amended to read as follows:

“ In the light of the defendant’s denial that it has been served with the Notice of 2011 AGM (or any prior notices), the burden is squarely on the IO to show, on a balance of probabilities, that it has done so. The IO has not, whether in its pleadings or in Mr. Shum’s closing submissions at the trial, advanced a case that the 2011 AGM and the March 19 Resolution should nevertheless be valid and binding on the defendant even if the court were to find that there had not been valid service of the Notice of 2011 AGM on the defendant or the other Theatre Owners. This is also clear from the manner in which the AGM Issue has been framed by the parties.”

2.Paragraph 32(2) be amended to read as follows:

“ Since the defendant’s acquisition of the Theatre Parts in 2007, the Theatre Owners managed, maintained and repaired the Theatre Parts, including spending money on painting the external walls of the Theatre Parts, and neither the IO nor the Non-Theatre Owners contributed to the same. On the other hand, the defendant had not paid (and was not asked or required to pay) any management fee(s) nor was it required to share in any contributions with the owners of the rest of the Building.”

3.Paragraph 57 be amended to read as follows:

“ As I have found above in respect of the AGM Issue, no notices of any meetings had been served on the defendant, at least until after the 2011 AGM. Again, no argument has been advanced by the IO that the acts of the purported management committee, including its determination regarding the subject contributions, should be regarded as valid and binding on the defendant even if no notices for the appointment of its members had been served on the defendant.”