Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re A Wall Signboard Attached At 3/F-10/f, China Travel (Cargo) Logistics Centre, No.1 Cheong Tung Road, Hung Hom, Kowloon Location 2: External Wall Facing Hung Hom Station

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date06 March 2017
Year2017
Judgement NumberDCMP545/2017
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCMP545/2017 RE A WALL SIGNBOARD ATTACHED AT <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/hunter-v-darngavil-coal-802274025">3/F-10</a>/F, CHINA TRAVEL (CARGO) LOGISTICS CENTRE, NO.1 CHEONG TUNG ROAD, HUNG HOM, KOWLOON LOCATION 2: EXTERNAL WALL FACING HUNG HOM STATION

DCMP 545/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 545 OF 2017

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

IN THE MATTER of Section 24B of the Building Ordinance (Cap. 123)
and
IN THE MATTER of a wall signboard attached to the external wall at 3/F to 10/F facing Hung Hom Station, China Travel (Cargo) Logistics Centre, No. 1 Cheong Tung Road, Hung Hom, Kowloon

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

Before: His Honour Judge MK Liu in Chambers (Open to public)
Date of Hearing: 28 February 2017
Date of Decision: 28 February 2017
Date of Reasons for Decision: 6 March 2017

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

INTRODUCTION

1. At the end of the hearing, I granted the priority demolition order (“PDO”) sought by the Building Authority (“BA”) but I refused to award costs of this application to the BA. I also declined to make an order concerning the demolition costs. I now give my reasons.

The PDO

2. On 17 February 2017, the BA applied to this court (“the PDO application”) for a PDO in respect of the premises known as “a wall signboard attached to the external wall at 3/F to 10/F facing Hung Hom Station, China Travel (Cargo) Logistics Centre, No.1 Cheong Tung Road, Hung Hom, Kowloon” (“the Signboard”). The application was made pursuant to s 24B of the Buildings Ordinance (“BO”). On 21 February 2017, the BA filed 2 affirmations in support of the application.

3. Apart from posting the notice of the PDO application (“the Notice”) upon a conspicuous part of China Travel (Cargo) Logistics Centre (“the Building”), the BA has also sent the Notice to the following persons, who in the BA’s view, are persons affected by the PDO application:-

(a) The owner of the Building (“the Owner”);

(b) Yamatoo Japan Limited (“YJ”);

(c) China Travel Cultural Media Hong Kong Limited (“CTCM”); and

(d) Real Media International Company Limited (“RM”).

4. Having considered the evidence filed by the BA, I am satisfied that the requirements concerning notice of the PDO application in s 24B(2), (3) and (4) have been complied with. I am also satisfied that the BA has proved the existence of the circumstances as set out in s 24B(1)(a) and (b), ie “the building or building works constitute an imminent danger to life or property” and “the building has been erected or the building works have been or are being carried out with a view to sale, letting or other disposal.”

5. According to the evidence produced by the BA:-

(a) The Signboard is an unauthorized structure and there is no evidence proving its safety. The projection of the maintenance walkways from the external wall has exceeded the standard and is excessive. Further, the Signboard is projected over a construction site and the failure of the structural frames could bring catastrophic consequences to the public safety.

(b) CTCM in the capacity of the sole operator of the Owner authorized RM as the sole advertising agent to merchant and to operate the Signboard.

6. As to why the BA is of the view that YJ is a person affected by the PDO application, the evidence on this point is unclear. However, this does not affect the PDO application in any way.

7. On 22 February 2017, the BA has instructed the Department of Justice (“DoJ”) to represent them in these proceedings. On 23 February 2017, the DoJ filed a notice to act in these proceedings

8. On 24 February 2017, a Mr Li Lyu (李旅) filed an application to this court pursuant to s 24B(7) of the BO (“the 24B(7) Notice”) to apply to be heard in the hearing of the PDO application. This is the only 24B(7) Notice filed in these proceedings. Mr Li did not specify his capacity in the 24B(7) Notice. Mr Li also did not file any affidavit or affirmation in response to the PDO application made by the BA.

9. During the hearing, Mr Li said he was the General Manager of CTCM and he was authorized by CTCM to attend the hearing. Mr Li undertook to this court that he would provide an authorization letter signed and sealed by a director of CTCM to this court after the hearing. The said authorization letter was provided to the court in the afternoon on 28 February 2017.

10. Mr Li made an oral representation in the hearing, in which he mentioned 3 points:-

(a) The Signboard was erected at a time...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT