Posts Tagged ‘common parts’

Car parking spaces: common parts?

July 14, 2017

Tai Fat Development (Holding) Co Ltd v Gold King Industrial Building (IO) ([2017] HKEC 1366, CFA) concerned a dispute as to whether or not thirteen car parking spaces in the building were common parts. The first owner of the building claimed to be entitled to their exclusive use.

As always, this was a question of interpretation of the words used in the light of the DMC as a whole, other relevant documents and the factual matrix. The CFA agreed with the courts below that these factors all pointed to the conclusion that the car parking spaces were common parts.

The DMC referred to the spaces as ‘loading and unloading areas’. If the spaces were not common parts there would be a breach of the terms of the Government Grant. There would also be severe practical difficulties.

The first owners also relied on estoppel by convention. The incorporated owners had taken leases of the spaces from them. The necessary common understanding that the first owners owned the spaces was lacking, however; the incorporated owners disputed this claim even as they accepted the leases. Nor could the first owners point to any detriment.

Michael Lower

 

Advertisements

Closure of basement parking area during renovation works

January 12, 2015

In Tung Lo Court (IO) v Leung May Chun Alison Aliance ([2014] HKEC 2104, CA) the basement of the building (which included the car parking spaces) had become dilapidated and the incorporated owners decided to have repair and renovation works carried out. Once the work had begun there was an unanticipated problem when the basement was flooded with underground water. The contractors took advice and they were told that safety demanded that the basement be completely closed for four months. The incorporated owners followed this advice. L contended that this closure amounted to a breach of the DMC and also constituted a nuisance. The Court of Appeal rejected this. Given the strong advice that they had received about the risk to safety, it was reasonable for them to have closed down the basement ([31.1]). It was also legitimate to bear in mind the complicated legal issues that might have arisen if someone had been harmed or suffered damage to their property had the basement remained open; it would not have been clear whether the liability was that of the contractor or of the incorporated owners ([31.2]). It was also legitimate to base the decision on financial considerations; closing down the basement meant that the work could be done more quickly and at a lower cost that would otherwise have been the case ([38.4]).

Michael Lower

Adverse possession of a common part by a non-owner

September 10, 2013

In Yeung Mau Cheung v Ka Ming Court ([2013] HKEC 1271, CFI) the plaintiffs and their predecessors had used two portions of the common parts of a building as a refreshment store and associated storage area since 1965. The DMC for the building was created in 1970. The question was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to declarations that they had a possessory title and that the defendant’s title had been extinguished by the Limitation Ordinance. The court was satisfied that the plaintiffs had been in adverse possession for the necessary length of time ([29] – [30]).

The next question was whether the adverse possession claim was defeated by the covenant not to convert common parts to private use implied into the DMC by section 34I of the Building Management Ordinance. This defence failed. The court relied on, and regarded itself as being bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Wong Kim Lin v Peony House (IO).

Michael Lower

Adverse possession of a common part by a stranger to the DMC: BMO s.34I does not defeat the adverse possession claim

July 4, 2013

In Wong King Lim v Peony House (IO) ([2013] HKEC 828, CA) W had been in adverse possession of a lane behind Peony House since 1987. The lane was a common part of Peony House. W was not an owner of Peony House and so not subject to the terms of the DMC. W brought an adverse possession claim in respect of the lane. The incorporated owners argued that any title thus acquired was subject to the covenant implied by section 34I of the Buildings Management Ordinance (a covenant not to convert common parts to private use). The argument was that this restrictive covenant had priority over W’s possessory title (relying on Re Nisbet and Pott’s Contract).

This argument failed. One reason given by the Court of Appeal looked at the purpose of the covenant:

‘The owners of the Building had covenanted only with one another to possess the Lane in common and not exclusively.’ ([34] Yuen JA)

Once the title of all the owners to the lane had been extinguished then there was (so to speak) no covenantee with an interest in land who could enforce the covenant. ([34]) (see also [43] Lam JA). It seems to make no difference that the owners still had title to the rest of the Building and, in that capacity, still had an interest in the enforcement of the implied covenant.

A second reason is given for the proposition that W was not subject to the implied covenant. This is that the right to enforce the covenant had also been defeated by the Limitation Ordinance:

‘[I]n contrast with the position of the covenantee in that case, the Defendant IO’s right under the DMC (and the deemed obligation under the DMC created by Section 34I) has been infringed from the very beginning of the dispossession by the Plaintiff over the portion of the land in question. Thus, the basis of the judgment of Collins MR in that case (viz time should not start to run until the right of the covenantee is affected) has no application to our case. The extinguishment of the title to the land under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 encompasses the title to enforce the DMC in respect of that portion of the land.’ ([44] Lam JA)

Michael Lower