Comments for Hong Kong Land Law Blog

Comment on Building Management Ordinance only vests a cause of action in the Incorporated Owners where it is one common to all owners by Michael Lower

Michael Lower — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:23:11 +0000

Section 18 gives powers to ‘the corporation’ but this does not imply that the owners’ meeting need approve every decision (you refer to section 29 and this states that unless the Ordinance stipulates otherwise, the powers that the Ordinance confers on the corporation are to be exercised by the management committee).

Section 34K provides that on incorporation the management committee takes over the role of the owners’ committee.

Comment on The doctrine of frustration and leases: National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd by Precious kaniki

Precious kaniki — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:22:38 +0000

Thanks very much.

Comment on Tuen Ng Festival by Sam Wong

Sam Wong — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:18:54 +0000

Happy public holiday and enjoy dumplings

Comment on Building Management Ordinance only vests a cause of action in the Incorporated Owners where it is one common to all owners by Sam

Sam — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:39:02 +0000

Dear Professor Lower

Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to consider my queries.

BMO s18(2)(fa) expressly allows an owners corporation to “carry out any renovation, improvement or decoration work, as the case may be, to the common parts”. Does this imply that such power must be exercised by a corporation in general meeting, and not delegated to a management committee under s29?

If this view is correct, must there be a formal resolution put to the owners at such meeting (with the resolution having been included in the notice to the general meeting)? This step is not taken in the scenarios described in my queries.

In quantum terms, BMO s20A is complied with in the current case.

The building in question is very old and the DMC is woefully out of date. The document refers to an owners committee only, and it is not clear how to incorporate the “management committee” concept. Further, is it true that BMO s18(2) will take precedence over the terms of the DMC?

Thanks again.

Comment on When is there sufficient evidence that a resulting trust has been brought to an end? by Kong

Kong — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 02:54:27 +0000

how can the Vendor discharge his obligations to prove good title to the property, other than, as in the Rose Palace case, relying on statutory declarations by a solicitor who witnessed the nomination (the solicitor may have died), and s.7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (12 years may not have passed yet)?

Comment on Building Management Ordinance only vests a cause of action in the Incorporated Owners where it is one common to all owners by Michael Lower

Michael Lower — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 06:15:57 +0000

Thanks for the question. My initial reaction is that you capture the central question (the one that supplies the answer to 1 – 3) when you ask whether the management committee is acting within its authority. This is a factual matter.

Is it acting within the powers conferred by section 18(2)? What does the DMC say?

There is also section 20A of the Building Management Ordinance to be complied with.

Comment on Building Management Ordinance only vests a cause of action in the Incorporated Owners where it is one common to all owners by Sam

Sam — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:01:47 +0000

Dear Professor Lower

I wonder if I may pose a query here which has practical implications for the running of many owners corporations.

Suppose an owner puts forward a proposal to “modify” the common parts of the estate at an IO general meeting without any details (technical, costs, etc), but only an outline. No formal resolution is passed. It is decided at such meeting that an engineer or other suitable professional will prepare a report and brief, and quotations will be obtained from contractors.

(1) What happens if the management committee proceeds to carry out the “modification” works affecting the common parts without referring back to the IO in general meeting? Is the committee acting within its authority?

(2) Same as (1) above, except that there is a material change from the proposal previously outlined at the IO general meeting. Again, can the committee carry out the works of its own accord, claiming that owners has already “agreed” to them in the general meeting?

(3) What actions need to have been taken at the IO general meeting to enable the management committee to carry out the works to the common parts?

The BMO has many grey areas, eg, how a proposed course of action – in the above example, one that affects common parts – is to be “agreed to” by members in an IO general meeting.

These possible procedural abuses seem to be quite common, and yet an individual owner may have no cost-effective means to safeguard his rights.

Your feedback and input would be much appreciated and welcome.

Comment on Adverse possession: limitation period; abandonment of possession? by Michael Lower

Michael Lower — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:29:28 +0000

That is an interesting question. I don’t know of any authority in Hong Kong on this though in England that is the result. It is not any kind of lease since it does not arise out of an agreement.

Comment on Adverse possession: limitation period; abandonment of possession? by Greg

Greg — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:26:53 +0000

thanks for your reply!!
Is that mean the ownership of that land become freehold like the saint john cathedral?

Comment on Adverse possession: limitation period; abandonment of possession? by Michael Lower

Michael Lower — Wed, 15 May 2013 07:31:15 +0000

A person who successfully relies on adverse possession claims a possessory title (that is one where the claim to ownership rests on possession rather than on title deeds).