買樓花有著數

睇左法團代表小業主上訴案輸咗後【發牙痕】
畢加山一號,法圑告發展商(長江)本來最初羸,後來在高院上訴庭輸了
案件是(1億4仟萬之維修費???)要發展商負責維修(涉及屋苑外牆滲水問題),但最終輸了。
畢架山一號判書: CACV 226/2011, 23頁, 79段
….The facts
1. This appeal concerns the extent to which an owners’ corporation (“IO”) can sue in relation to the common parts of the building.
2. Stripped of all non-essentials, the facts involved in this appeal may be briefly stated. The defendant was the developer of the development known as One Beacon Hill situated at No 1 Beacon Hill Road, Kowloon (“the development”). The development comprises 604 residential units, an equal number of car parking spaces and 35 motorcycle parking spaces. Before construction of the development was completed, the defendant entered into standard-term sale and purchase agreements with various purchasers in respect of 480 residential units under the Consent Scheme administered by the Lands Department (“the consent scheme contracts”). …………..
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=83709&QS=%2B&TP=JU
我對此案的理解:
小業主買樓花, 地產發展商受到地政署合約规限(Consent Scheme), 對公用設施建造維護有保证!!!
買現樓的就不受約束,  公用設施結構或工藝建造有問題都告唔入.
法團不可同時代表兩批業主提出索償 😥
唔知係吾係咁解 😊
http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20110417/-1-2077329/1.html
多謝友人劉生指出:
是法團本身的 “locus to sue”, i. e. lack of capacity to sue, in relation to the common parts of the owners of the building, on behalf of some, but not all, of the co-owners.
文章分類 * 發牙痕, * 訴訟, 停車場, 公用部分, 其他屋苑, 維修, 長實, 高衛 標籤: