Chan King Yip Mark v. The Incorporated Owners of Greenville Gardens of Shiu Fai Terrace
|
LDBM 83/2026 [2026] HKLdT 57 IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO 83 OF 2026 ___________________
___________________
_______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ INTRODUCTION 1.This is an application made by a registered owner of an estate for dissolution of the management committee of the Respondent and appointment of an administrator pursuant to Section 31 of the Building Management Ordinance, Cap. 344 (“Ordinance”). BACKGROUND 2.By the Deed of Gift dated 21 June 2013, the Applicant became the registered owner of a residential unit of the Greenville Gardens of Shiu Fai Terrace, Wanchai, Hong Kong (“Estate”). He has been living in the Estate for more than 10 years. The Estate is a private estate consists of 4 blocks of buildings, providing a total of around 317 flats. There are also car parking spaces within the Estate. 3.The Respondent, which was incorporated on 25 January 1983, is duty-bound to manage the Estate in full compliance with the Ordinance and the Deed of Mutual Covenant dated 24 February 1975 (and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No. UB1146817) (“DMC”). 4.Under Section 18 of the Ordinance, the Respondent is required to maintain the common parts and the property of the corporation in a state of good and serviceable repair and clean condition; carry out such work as may be ordered or required in respect of the common parts by any public officer or public body in exercise of the powers conferred by any Ordinance; and do all things reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the obligations contained in the deed of mutual covenant (if any) for the control, management and administration of the building. 5.Under the Ordinance, the powers and duties of the Respondent are exercised and performed on its behalf by a management committee. The number of members of the management committee is governed by Section 1(1) and (2) of Schedule 2 of the Ordinance, which provides that:-
6.Since the Estate has more than 100 flats, the minimum number of any management committee of the Respondent shall not be less than 9. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 7.By filing of the Notice of Application on 29 May 2026 and further clarification in court by Ms Chan, Solicitor acting for the Applicant, the Applicant now seeks an order under Section 31 of the Ordinance that the incumbent management committee be dissolved and Guardian Property Management Limited (“Guardian”) be appointed as an administrator of the Estate without remuneration solely for the purpose of convening and conducting a general meeting of owners for election of new management committee members for the Respondent (“Specified Duty”) with no order as to costs of the present proceedings. 8.For an application under section 31 of the Ordinance, the general rule is that given the nature of the relief sought under section 31 of the Ordinance, all the incumbent members of the management committee and the incorporated owners should be made a party to the proceedings because they would obviously be affected by the relief sought in the application. The absence of a proper party is not a mere procedural irregularity but a matter of substantive rights : Leung Ho Sing and Others v Shum Yiu Tung and Others CACV108/2006, Unreported, 21 July 2006 §§9-12. 9.In the present case, it is the Applicant’s pleaded case that all the management committee members had already resigned in the end of June 2025 and the management committee has since been left in a vacuum. I therefore, at the call-over hearing on 24 August 2026, directed the Applicant to file witness statement together with the relevant documents for proof of the election and resignation of all management committee members, the identity and status of the Applicant and the Respondent as well as the curriculum vitae and consent of his nominated administrator. In particular, the relevant registration documents lodged with the Land Registry should be exhibited. 10.Given no member of the management committee would be joined as a party to this action and there would be no one acting for the Respondent, I also gave directions on additional requirement for service of documents in this action. 11.According to the two affirmations filed for the Applicant respectively on 4 June 2026 and 24 September 2026, the Applicant has effected service of the Notice of Application, Court Order dated 24 August 2026, witness statement, opening submission on the Respondent by leaving at the registered office of the Respondent as well as by displaying the same at the main entrance and the notice board of each of the four blocks of the Estate to ensure the present application was made known to all owners of the Estate. 12.So far, there has been no application or Notice of Opposition filed against the present application. Nor has there been any person appeared in the hearing to oppose the present application. The Applicant is the sole witness in this action. He filed his witness statement on 11 September 2026 and gave evidence in court. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 13.Under section 31 of the Ordinance, the Lands Tribunal is empowered to grant an order to dissolve the management committee and appoint an administrator. Section 31 provides: -
14.In determining an application under section 31 of the Ordinance, the proper approach to be adopted was summarized in §18 of Woo Man Fong v IO of Broadview Court (Shum Wan Road) and others [2021] HKCA 1598. In that case, the Court of Appeal approved the approach adopted by the Lands Tribunal that the applicant is to produce sufficient evidence to show that:-
DISSOLUTION AND APPOINTMENT 15.It is unchallenged evidence that by a resolution of the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Estate on 17 December 2024, 9 management committee members and 1 non-member secretary were elected to form the current management committee of the Respondent[1]. However, all of them tendered their resignations on 27 June 2025 and since then, no one has acted as the members, chairman, secretary or treasurer of the management committee or for and on behalf of the Respondent to manage the Estate or discharge the duties under the DMC and the Ordinance. Their resignations were recorded by the Notice of Change of Particulars dated 27 June 2025, which was filed with the Land Registry on 22 July 2025 pursuant to section 12(3) of the Ordinance. 16.In the circumstances, the Estate has been in a state of anarchy after 27 June 2025. Absent an operative management committee, the Respondent cannot function and the management of the Estate is at risk. Further, the Applicant gave evidence that the Respondent had been prosecuted by a company in an arbitration case since early 2025 and the case was on-going. It is also said that the bank account of the Respondent is now frozen. 17.Thus considered, it is necessary to convene a general meeting of owners for election of new members to form the management committee of the Respondent in order to manage the Estate and perform the duties under the Ordinance and the DMC without delay. 18.In this regard, the Applicant has produced solid evidence for proof that there are indeed 10 eligible owners who have expressed their willingness and readiness to run for the members of the management committee. Amongst, a letter jointly signed by 9 owners of the said 10 owners[2] (with their names stated therein and the land search record for proof of their ownership of the undivided shares of the Estate exhibited thereto) is produced to prove the said owners’ intentions to stand in the contemplated election. 19.In the circumstances, given all members of the management committee have resigned, no general meeting of owners can be convened without the intervention of the Tribunal as a meeting of the corporation can only be convened by the management committee (pursuant to section 1(1) of Schedule 3 of the Ordinance) or by the Chairman of the management committee at the written request of not less than 5% of the owners (pursuant to section 1(2) of Schedule 3 of the Ordinance). 20.Thus considered, I am convinced that all members of the incumbent management committee have resigned and no one has been able to perform the duties imposed on the management committee members and the Respondent under the DMC and the Ordinance. Accordingly, I accept the Applicant’s application for appointment of an administrator solely for the Specified Duty under section 31 of the Ordinance is necessary and proper. NOMINATED ADMINISTRATOR 21.For the following reasons, I am persuaded that Guardian, as nominated by the Applicant, is a fit and proper legal person to be appointed as administrator for the present purpose. 22.First, Guardian is the incumbent property management company of the Estate. It undoubtedly has actual knowledge and solid experience of managing the Estate as well as dealing with the owners of the Estate. Actually, it has assisted the former management committees of the Respondent to convene and hold general meetings no later than December 2024. Confirmation was given by the Applicant and Ms Chan, after consulting the representative of Guardian in Court, that its service agreement with the Respondent is still valid and will continue no less than the next three months. 23.Second, according to the curriculum vitae of Guardian, which is unchallenged evidence in this case, Guardian is a property management company under the group of Savills Guardian in Hong Kong. It was incorporated on 27 September 1977. Since its incorporation, Guardian has been providing property management services to a number of estates in Hong Kong with a considerable number of employees employed for such services. It apparently has solid experience and resources in property management and to perform and discharge the Specified Duty. 24.Third, the scope of the appointment is limited and well-defined to the Specified Duty solely. 25.Fourth, Guardian has, by way of a consent letter dated 14 May 2026 (“Consent Letter”), confirmed their willingness, readiness and commitment to act as the administrator for the Specific Duty without remuneration. It confined its scope of service and duties under the appointment to the Specified Duty and made itself clear that once the management committee members are elected, its role will conclude and its duty will be fully discharged upon the conclusion of the relevant meeting. 26.Fifth, by the Consent Letter, Guardian committed that no remuneration (other than disbursement) will be charged for its appointment, taking up the role of administrator or performing its role. Thus, no additional remuneration will be charged to the owners of the Estate. 27.Thus viewed, I am persuaded that Guardian is fit and proper to be appointed as the administrator for the Estate limited to the Specified Duty. Ms Chan confirmed that a period of three months will be appropriate for making all necessary arrangements for performing the Specified Duty. DISPOSITION 28.Taking matters in the round, I am satisfied that the Applicant has successfully proved his case. It is necessary to appoint an administrator to perform the Specified Duty as sought by the Applicant and Guardian is fit and proper to be appointed for such limited purpose. ORDER 29.Having considered all the evidence before me and the submission of the Applicant, I make an Order that:
30.On a final note, it is noteworthy that not only does Guardian charge no remuneration for its appointment as an administrator, but the Applicant also seeks no order as to costs. In other words, the Applicant is to bear his own costs of the whole proceedings. Coupled with his efforts to enlist Guardian’s assistance and his outreach to other owners to support the present application, his present application is made manifestly out of a commitment to contribute to the Estate and guided by the best interests of the Estate. 31.I thank Ms Chan for her assistance.
Ms Angel Chan, Huen & Partners, solicitor for the Applicant The Respondent was not represented and did not appear | ||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment