Read the full judgment text of LDBM 93/2022 on BabelCite. This Lands Tribunal judgment was delivered on 26 June 2024 before 黃一鳴.
Property law – building management – common parts – corridor fresh water pipes – Building Management Ordinance – Deed of Mutual Covenant – maintenance responsibility and costs – whether corridor fresh water pipes exclusively serving individual floors are common parts – whether separate water meters determine common parts status – review of tribunal member's decision – whether tribunal member independently reasoned or merely adopted respondent's submissions. Material facts: dispute over maintenance of fresh water pipes in each floor's corridor of an estate managed by respondent property manager; pipes located in lift lobby serving individual floors; respondent incurred costs in repairing leaks; applicant sought reimbursement of allegedly excessive charges. Legal issues and holdings: (1) Whether corridor fresh water pipes are common parts under the Building Management Ordinance and DMC – Yes; the determinative test from Summit Court is whether pipes form part of the common water supply system, not whether separate water meters are installed; physical location is a key consideration. (2) Whether applicant can claim reimbursement of maintenance costs – No; even if the pipes were not common parts, the DMC clauses 35.8, 35.17, 35.30, 35.43 and 37 grant the respondent authority to maintain them, and following Gallium Development Ltd, owners have no right to claim refund of fees. (3) Whether tribunal member failed to act independently – No; following Song Lian Zhong and Ng Shek Wai, a judge is only required to address material arguments, not every argument raised. So John distinguished: pipe there was embedded within respondent's flat; here the pipes are in common area lift lobby. DMC does not specify or designate the corridor pipes as exclusively for individual owners. Outcome: review application dismissed; applicant to pay respondent's costs of review on District Court basis as a provisional costs order.
Legal issues: Whether corridor fresh water pipes are common parts requiring the respondent to maintain · Whether the applicant can claim reimbursement of excessive maintenance charges for the corridor water pipes · Whether the review tribunal member failed to act independently by merely adopting the respondent's submissions
Outcome: Review application dismissed; original judgment upheld.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases