Read the full judgment text of CACV 226/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 October 2012 before Hon Cheung CJHC, Lam JA, Barma J.
Building Management Ordinance — Incorporation of owners — Section 16 — Whether incorporated owners (IO) have locus to sue regarding breaches affecting common parts where contractual rights accrued only to some co-owners and pre-incorporation — Section 18(2)(g) — Discretionary power to act for owners in matters of common interest — Does not confer locus standi to sue where no right of action exists — Purposive statutory interpretation — Co-owners’ common and individual rights distinguished — Case law including Grenville House, Hang Yick, and Jikan Development Ltd considered — IO's locus limited to actions involving legal rights common to all co-owners collectively, not individual or some owners — Allowing IO to sue on behalf of some owners could cause injustice and governance difficulties — Multiplicity of proceedings is a relevant but not overriding consideration — Appeal allowed, statement of claim struck out for want of locus to sue, hearing remitted. This case clarifies the scope of locus standi of an incorporated owners’ corporation under the Building Management Ordinance in relation to contractual causes of action concerning common parts. Costs ordered to defendant.
Legal issues: Locus to sue under section 16 of the Building Management Ordinance · Whether section 18(2)(g) of the Building Management Ordinance confers locus to sue
Outcome: Plaintiff’s statement of claim struck out for want of locus to sue; appeal allowed; order below set aside; hearing of paragraph 4 of amended summons remitted to Court of First Instance.
Cited by 2 cases