HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal1976

CHAN WAH-SUN v. CHINACHEM INVESTMENT CO LTD

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV116/1986CHINACHEM INVESTMENT CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INIAND REVENUE
  • CACV40/1977CHINACHEM INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CHUNG WAH WEAVING AND ANOTHER
  • CACV4/1978CHINACHEM INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CHEUNG KUNG-LEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACV5/1978CHINACHEM INVESTMENT CO LTD v. WONG LAI-YING AND OTHERS
  • HCIA2/1985CHINACHEM INVESTMENT CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
25637-EN-1977-03-15

CHAN WAH-SUN v. CHINACHEM INVESTMENT CO LTD

HTML content

HCSA000004/1976

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
  
 1976 No. 4
 (Small Claims)

 

BETWEEN  
 CHAN Wah-sunAppellant
 and 
 Chinachem Investment Company LimitedRespondent

-----------------

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins, J.A., and McMullin, J.

Date of Judgment: 15th March 1977.

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

Huggins, J.A.:

1. It is now common ground that the trial proceeded upon the false premiss that the claim was for a contribution under the Multi-storey Buildings (Owners Incorporation) Ordinance. In fact the provisions of that ordinance were not applicable and the claim was a claim brought under the deed of mutual covenant for payment for services rendered. There was a dispute whether the services had been rendered. Such a dispute would have been irrelevant had the claim been that which the adjudicator understood it to be. He therefore did not go into it and made no findings upon it.

2. Mr. Niamatullah did suggest that, as the Appellant had merely alleged that he himself was not satisfied with the management of the building and as the deed of mutual covenant provided that the manager should continue to act as such until it resigned or was removed by a meeting of owners in the manner laid down in Clause 13 of the deed, the services ought to be assumed to have been rendered to the satisfaction of the majority of the owners, for the owners would otherwise have removed the manager. The deed does not appear to bind an owner to pay his due proportion of any expenses paid or claimed regardless of whether the work has been properly done, although no doubt it could have done. Even if it does, and in consequence the Appellant has no valid defence, he would have a counterclaim and I agree with my Lord that the case should be remitted to the adjudicator to reconsider the claim and, if necessary, to take appropriate action on the counterclaim which was implicit in the allegation that the claimant did not fulfil its duty to maintain the building.

 

15th March 1977.

 

Representation: