WONG TAK KEUNG STANLEY v. AARON KY CHAN AND ANOTHER

LDBM 348 OF 2003

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO. 348 OF 2003

_______________

_______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. This is an application by the 1st Respondent to ask for further and better particulars of the Notice of Application and for extension of time to file and serve its Notice of Opposition. The Notice of Application has the following contents: -

"1. The Applicant(s) apply(ies) for an order relating to breach of Part II, Section 6 of the Building Management Ordinance by knowingly overstating the number of management committee members in attendance in a Management Committee meeting dated August 25, 2003 in the minutes of the meeting prepared by Mr K C Wong and certified by Mr Aaron K Y Chan.

2. The question of law, interpretation and enforcement or other issue to be determined is:

The Respondents have knowingly prepared and certified the minutes of the Management Committee meeting with the intention to fraudulently represent the resolutions to have been passed in a valid Management Committee meeting despite the absence of the necessary quorum. Respondents shall be liable on conviction to fine as well as imprisonment pursuant to Part VII Section 36 of the Building Management Ordinance.

...........................................................................

Various matters and contracts which were awarded based on the August 25th meeting may be considered as ultra vires."

The Applicant denied that the 1st Respondent is entitled to such particulars.

2. The 1st Respondent's requests under paragraph 1 comprise requests (a), (b) and (c), which are set out as follows: -.

'(a) When was such minutes prepared by Mr. K. C. Wong and certified by Mr. Aaron K. Y. Chan with the intention to fraudulently represent the resolutions to have been passed is a valid Management Committee?

(b) What is meant by "knowingly overstating the number of management committee members", specifying the following: -

(i) how many committee members attended the meeting of the Management Committee held on 25th August, 2003;

(ii) how many committee members are overstated in the minutes for that meeting; and

(iii) on what basis the Applicant alleges that the Respondents knowingly overstating the number of the management committee members?

(c) When and how did the Applicant know about the aforesaid allegations?'

2.1 In fact the minutes referred to under para. 2 of the Notice of Application are the minutes referred to under para. 1 of the Notice of Application. The 1st Respondent is entitled to know when the said minutes were prepared by Mr. K. C. Wong and certified by Mr. Aaron Chan.

2.2 The Applicant made an allegation of overstating the number of management committee members. Obviously requests (i) and (ii) are relevant to this issue. The Applicant is also entitled to know the basis of the allegation of knowingly overstating the number of the management committee members. Therefore the 1st Respondent is entitled to have the particulars made under requests (a) and (b).

2.3 As to (c), the 1st Respondent is entitled to ask this question. The Applicant might have acquired the knowledge by personal knowledge or through hearsay. When and how he came to know about such allegation is relevant.

3. Under paragraph 2

3.1 Of the allegation that "Various matters and contracts which were awarded based on the August 25th meeting may be considered as ultra vires", please state: -

(a) which matters and contracts may be considered as ultra vires?

3.2 The Applicant must identity the matters and contracts in question for the 1st Respondent to put up his defence.

3.3 By reason of the matters aforesaid, the 1st Respondent is entitled to the requests put forward by him. The Applicant has to furnish such particulars. Since the Applicant furnished such particulars on 16th February 2004, I therefore make no order regarding item 1 of the summons.

4. I make the following orders: -

1. The Respondent do file his Notice of Opposition within 21 days from today.

2. Costs of this application be to the 1st Respondent, to be taxed, if not agreed, according to District Court scale.