THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FINANCE BUILDING v. BRIGHT HILL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS CO. LTD.

LDBM000153/2000

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Building Management Application No. LDBM 153 of 2000

_________________

BETWEEN
	THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FINANCE BUILDING	Applicant
	AND
	BRIGHT HILL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS COMPANY LIMITED	Respondent

________________

Coram: Deputy Judge LEE

Date of Hearing: 8 June 2000

Date of Judgment: 8 June 2000

Date of Reasons for Judgment: 15 June 2000

 

________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

________________________________

 

1. On the Applicant's own evidence, there is no longer a validly appointed Management Committee of the Incorporated Owners as at the date of the application, on 18th May 2000.

2. While the Applicant as a legal person enjoys perpetuity, the Management Committee must step down after a term of 2 years. The members are eligible for re-election to a new committee, but the legal procedures laid down in the Buildings Management Ordinance must be followed.

3. The Applicant does not have a Management Committee capable of carrying out the functions of the Incorporated Owners. It is not in a position to institute legal proceedings, to accept service & to conduct a defence.

4. The application is dismissed on the aforesaid grounds.

5. For the same reasons, the counter claim cannot be dealt with.

 

 

 

Representation:

Mr. Simon Lui, Counsel instructed by M/S William Lam & Co., for the Applicant.

The Respondent appearing in person.

APPLICATION NO. LDBM 153 of 2000

APPENDIX TO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DATED 14 JUNE 2000

At the hearing of the application, it transpired from the Applicant's evidence that there is no longer a validly constituted Management Committee, through which the Applicant Incorporated Owners can institute legal proceedings, accept service of documents or to conduct a defence . The Applicant has no locus standi.

The application cannot proceed any further in the circumstances. There has not been proper acceptance of service by the Applicant in any event. Although the Respondent representative's affirmation was to stand as the defence & counterclaim, in the order of transfer from the Court Of First Instance, it will be a futile exercise to deal with the counterclaim in this situation, even if there is jurisdiction to do so.

The counterclaim cannot proceed. The Lands Tribunal has no jurisdiction on the matter raised in the counterclaim, under the 10th Schedule of the Building Management Ordinance Cap 344.

It must be understood that the transfer of a case from the Court Of First Instance to the Lands Tribunal does not confer all the powers of the Court of First Instance to the Lands Tribunal.

 

 

 

Respondent's appeal to Court of Appeal allowed. Please refer to CACV386/2000 dated 29 November 2001