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

The Building Authority v Appeal Tribunal (Buildings)

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date05 December 1997
Year1997
Judgement NumberHCAL85/1997
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCAL000085/1997 THE BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

HCAL000085/1997

1997,No. AL 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG

SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

____________

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Judicial Review

and

IN THE MATTER of a decision made by the Appeal Tribunal (Buildings) contained in a letter dated 10 July 1997

____________

BETWEEN
THE BUILDING AUTHORITY Applicant
AND
APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS) Respondent

____________

Coram: Hon. Mr. Justice Yeung in Court

Date of hearing: 1 December 1997

Date of handing down judgment: 5 December 1997

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The land (K.I.L. 2341) was sub-divided into K.I.L. 2341 s.E., K.I.L. 2341 R.P., and K.I.L. 2341 s.B.s. Manly Court occupies K.I.L 2341 s.E. and is known as 195 Prince Edward Road West. Harita Court at 197-199A Prince Edward Road West and Wale's Court at 201-203 Prince Edward Road West occupy K.I.L. 2341 R.P. and K.I.L. s.B.s. respectively.

2. At the side of the land right next to Manly Court there is a slope with a retaining wall. The retaining wall is dangerous and remedial works are required.

3. On 27th of February 1995, the Building Authority served an order No. DH 1/K/95/C (the 1st Order) under section 27A of the Building Ordinance on The Incorporated Owners of Manly Court, 195 Prince Edward Road West Kowloon as owner of the land K.I.L 2341 s.E. The order required the owners of Manly Court to carry out remedial works in connection with the retaining wall on the land.

4. On 1st of April 19996, the Building Authority issued another order No. DH 2/K/96/C (the 2nd Order) which superseded the 1st Order in connection with the remedial works to the said retaining wall. The Order stipulated that the remedial works were to be completed between 13th May 1996 and 8th July 1996.

5. The 2nd Order was served on The Incorporated Owners of Manly Court, The Incorporated Owners of Harita Court as well as all the co-owners of Wale's Court, as persons who under the terms of a Crown lease are under an obligation to maintain the land.

6. Six of the co-owners of Wale's Court appealed to the Appeal Tribunal (Buildings), (the Tribunal) under s. 47 of the Buildings Ordinance against the 2nd Order.

7. The suggestion by the six co-owners of Wale's Court was that the owners of Manly Court alone should be responsible for the remedial works and not the Crown lessees of the land as the said retaining wall was built for Manly Court and hence only the owner of Manly Court gets the benefit of the wall and only they are at risks when the said retaining wall is dangerous.

8. After a full hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the six co-owners of Wale's Court and directed the Building Authority to serve the 2nd Order on The Incorporated Owners of the Manly Court as owner of the said retaining wall and that the remedial works in question could be completed between 15th of September 1997 and 1st of November 1997.

9. The Tribunal, in its written decision made the following observation;

"After listening to the Appellants and the Respondent and having perused all the relevant documents and written submissions submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal was of the view that in exercising its discretion under Section 27A(1) of the Buildings Ordinance, the Building Authority was perfectly entitled to serve the said Order on the owners of the said Structure, i.e. the Incorporated Owners of Manly Court, No. 195 Prince Edward Road West, Kowloon. It was agreed between the parties that the said Structure falls within the boundary of K.I.L. 2341 Section E only. It was also clear from the manner in which the Structure was formed that it was to make way for the construction of Manly Court and hence only the owners of Manly Court would benefit from the formation of the said Structure. The remarks made by the Geotechnical office in its "Case Sheet" also stated that the risk imposed by the dangerous slope mainly affect the owners of Manly Court. In addition, and perhaps most important...

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