Advertisement
Advertisement
Tin Chung Court resident Mok Yim-hay has taken on the Housing Authority over HK$70 million in outstanding management fees. Photo: Bruce Yan

Hong Kong’s Housing Authority contests bill of HK$30m in management fees

Thomas Chan

The Housing Authority is asking an appeal court to send an order for it to pay HK$71 million in outstanding management fees on a Tin Shui Wai estate back to the Lands Tribunal for reconsideration as the tribunal judge failed to determine when part of the fees were incurred.

Included in the sum was HK$30 million that was incurred between December 1999 and October 2001 and for which the authority had told the tribunal it did not accept liability because a law provided for only up to 12 years in pursuing outstanding charges.

But the tribunal ruled last year, upon a challenge by Tin Chung Court resident Mok Yim-hay, that the authority was responsible for outstanding fees 8totalling HK$71 million.

The fees stemmed from unsold subsidised flats at two Tin Chung blocks that were taken off the market because of a short-piling scandal in 1999, and covered the period from December 1999 to August 30 last year.

Tin Chung Court resident Mok Yim-hay (centre) accompanied by Labour Party's Chiu Yan-loy (right), protests at Housing Authority's decision to further appeal against Lands Tribunal decision outside High Court in Admiralty on Tuesday. Photo: Edward Wong

Earlier at the tribunal, the authority cited the Limitation Ordinance in arguing it should not be liable for the HK$30 million.

The authority argued its case on Tuesday at the Court of Appeal.

Barrister Johnny Mok Shu-luen SC, for the authority, said the tribunal judge did not rule on the limitation argument.

Court of Appeal vice-president Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon explained the gist of yesterday’s hearing to Tin Chung resident Mok, who had no legal representation.

After hearing Lam’s summary, Mok said: “I believe the decision of the Lands Tribunal is correct, and I believe the bench can make the correct decision.”

The three-judge panel reserved its ruling.

 

Post