Property Management Laws: Specific Events Essay Paper

Specific Events (Scenario VIII)

Scenario VIII (a)

(a) Facts:

 A property officer has increased the management fee based on management shares. I have protested that this should not be the formula, and intend to summon an owner’s meeting to have him dismissed.


Key issues in the case include (a) whether compliance with the terms of DMC was followed in fixing the management fee, and (b) what procedures should be followed in dismissing the DMC manager.


When a Lands Tribunal establishes that the management fee has not been calculated in compliance with the terms of the DMC, it would make an appropriate declaration to have the compliance met. In the case law of Harvest Top Development Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Harbor View Garden [2011], the claimant possessed 72 car parking spaces in Harbor View Garden. The claimant complained to the court that he was paying an unfair amount of management fee. The court established that the method of calculating the fee was in compliance with the terms of the DMC.

A related ruling was demonstrated in Wong Pun-Man v Tung Fat Industrial Building (IO) [1996], where terms of DMC determined the calculation of management fees by shop owners and owners of apartments. The DMC later demanded an increase in the fees as agreed during an annual owners’ meeting. Shop owners realized that they were paying a higher amount of fee than flat owners, and demanded a recompense for the overpayment. The court held that since it was in compliance with the terms of the DMC, they could not be recompensed (Leung et al., 2009).


It is clear from the case scenario that the property officer has not calculated the management fee in compliance with the terms of the DMC. As held in Harvest Top Development Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Harbor View Garden [2011] the method of calculating the fee should be in compliance with the terms of the DMC. One of the owners has protested that the fee should not be calculated by management shares.


As compliance with the terms of DMC was followed in fixing the management fee, the property officer erred in calculating the management fee. The new fees are therefore unlawful.

 (b) One of the owners wants to convene a meeting to dismiss the DMC manager.


Whether the right procedures could be followed in dismissing the DMC manager.


The Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) specifies the rights and responsibilities of owners and owner’s corporation (OC) to dismiss or terminate the services of a DMC manager. Technically, a DMC manager is an individual or property management firm that the OC appoints to carry out everyday property management roles. Under paragraph 7(1) of the Seventh Schedule to the BMO, the OC can terminate the DCM manager’s appointment. Paragraph 7 of Sch 7 also sets out that the dismissal should be by notice and without compensation when a majority of the OC passes a resolution for the termination, or when at least 50 percent of the owners support the resolution to do so.

The notice of termination should be passed to the manager in 14 days following the date of the meeting. The notice should be passed alongside a copy of the resolution that terminates the appointment. Consistent with paragraph 7(1) of the Seventh Schedule to the BMO,


One of the owners called an owners’ meeting to dismiss your company as the DMC manager. This is the first step, as the owners are allowed to dismiss the DMC manager. The notice of termination should then be passed to the property officer 14 days after the date of the meeting alongside a copy of the resolution that terminates the appointment.

 Scenario VIII (b)


Tony has rented a shop in the commercial complex and assigned the shop to Amy. The tenancy agreement requires that the premises should not be used for illegal purposes. However, Amy sells pirated video games.

Issues: The key issues include (a) the position of assignee (Amy) as far as the tenancy agreement is concerned and whether she can still comply with the terms of agreement between Tony and the landlord, and (b) the procedures that could be followed to forfeit a tenancy agreement without proviso of forfeiture.


The assignee of a tenancy agreement is liable on to execute the terms of the covenant only at the time the lease becomes legally vested in them, but not once they assign the lease. In the case law of Johnsey Estates Ltd v Lewis and Manley (Engineering) Ltd (1987), A1 was assigned to lease by T. A1 then assigned it to A2. Later, A2 underwent insolvency. The main legal issue was whether A1 could be termed as being liable for rent due with regard to the time after A2 was assigned the lease. The Court of Appeal decided that A1 was not liable. At any rate, A1 was liable to indemnifying T due to an indemnity inferred into the assignment for “valuable consideration under section 77(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.” In the case of Hong Kong, this corresponds to indemnity inferred by section 35 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance.

Therefore, in the context of Hong Kong, an important consideration would be given to the question, can CPO s.31 be applied to equitable leases, and whether tenants should sign an agreement for lease if the lease has to be brought within CPO s.31. In practice, CPO s.31 permits assignees of the reversion to put into effect the terms of a tenancy agreement, despite the fact that the landlord only signed a written agreement.

In the case of Rye v Purcell [1926], T was granted a lease of a property by an authorized agent of L. T was held to be liable to remain in possession on the basis of the tenancy agreement, and to pay the rent specified in the letter. After L’s action in assigning the reversion, the assignee went ahead to bring an action that claimed that T had erred in failing to keep the property in good condition as specified by the terms of the written agreement. According to T, the assignee was in breach of the agreement. While T was of the view that since he had not signed a written agreement he had no covenant with the assignee, the court held that the letter could as well serve as an agreement, thus bringing the lease within s.31of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance. Additionally, any assignee could obtain specific performance of the covenant on the basis of the signature of the landlord or the remaining possession of the tenant.


The assignee of a tenancy agreement is liable on to execute the terms of the covenant only at the time the lease becomes legally vested in them, but not once they assign the lease. In compliance with CPO s.31 permits, Tony, who is the assignee, should put into effect the terms of a tenancy agreement, despite the fact that the landlord only signed a written agreement.


Amy is liable to execute the terms of the covenant. She should put into effect the terms of a tenancy agreement, including not carrying out illegal activities in the building, as the landlord agreed with Tony.

It is ordinary for tenancy agreement to have a clause entitling the landlord the right to forfeit the tenancy. This essentially means terminating the tenancy and re-entering the property in the event that a tenant has failed to pay rent.

In situations where the tenancy agreement lacks a forfeiture clause, the law would still entitle the landlord with the right of forfeiture when the tenant fails to pay rent or fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, as set out by section 117(3) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance for domestic property or section 126 for a non-domestic property.

Therefore, since Amy failed to comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is provided with a right of forfeiture.


Scenario VIII (c) 

Facts:  Tu’s piranhas are crushed into the swimming pool by a dog. Betty is later bitten by the piranhas while swimming, and seeks to recover for damages under Occupier’s Liability Ordinance.

Issue: Whether is liable for compensation from the company or Tu for being bitten by the piranha under the Occupier’s Liability Ordinance. 

Law: Occupiers owe a duty of care to visitors on the basis of a lease or ownership. Such a liability comes about in case if accidents resulting from hazardous or defective conditions of the property in question, is to a considerable degree transferable to the manager of the facility. In Hong Kong, the Property Management Services Ordinance (PMSO) makes facility managers or contractors liable for visitors’ safety. In buildings with multiple occupiers, the occupiers would still be responsible for the safety and security of visitors – as much as the facility managers. In brief, the occupiers and facility managers – as held in Wheat v Lacon [1966]– are both apportioned the occupiers’ liability.


As an occupier, Tu owes a duty of care to visitors on the basis of a lease or ownership. As piranhas would be hazardous to visitors, she is expected to ensure that they are stored away from risks of exposure to other occupiers of the building or visitors. A dag has accidentally knocked over the carelessly exposed tank, and the piranhas are spilled into the swimming pool. At this juncture, there is evidence that the premises were relatively safe until the arrival of the piranhas. Hence, the property management company may have taken enough measures to ensure the safety of the occupiers and visitors until Tu’s invasion with the piranhas.



Once it can be established that Betty was actually a visitor rather than a trespasser, she will be liable for compensation from Tu and not the company. The company and Tu would have shared the liability if the company had left the premises to be unsafe since both the occupier and the property management company are responsible for the safety and security of visitors. Therefore, the company would not be liable.


Scenario VIII (d)

Facts: A male property officer has displayed nude gay men photos as screen savers and shares obscene jokes with his male colleagues.

Issue: Whether the screensaver and jokes are tantamount to sexual harassment, and the employer’s liability in such a scenario.


Sexual harassment refers to an unsolicited or undesirable sexual behaviour generally viewed to be degrading, offensive, or menacing. An example includes unsolicited sexual advances.

S.2(5) and s. 2(8) of SDO specify that any person can perform the act of sexual harassment to a woman or a man. The regulations that related to sexual harassment are also applicable to advancements for homosexual relationships. This implies that acts of sexual harassment by a man to another man can make one to be liable for suing under SDO, including unsolicited physical contact, display of sexually explicit photos, and sexually offensive or suggestive jokes and gestures.


By displaying nude gay men photos as screen savers and sharing obscene jokes with his male colleagues, the male property officer is in contravention of S.2(5) and s. 2(8) of SDO, which classify obscene and sexually suggestive screensavers and jokes as tantamount to sexual harassment. Under such a scenario, the employer’s intervention is required to stop the male property officer or also be held liable for failing to stop sexual harassment.


The display of nude gay men photos as screen savers and sharing obscene jokes is equivalent to sexual harassment. The employer should intervene to stop the male officer from engaging in sexual harassment or also be held liable.


Scenario VIII (e)

Facts: The implications of the Property Management Services Ordinance on the property management industry.

The Property Management Services Ordinance (“Cap. 626”) provides for the setting of Property Management Services Authority (PMSA), which regulates how property management practitioners (PMPs) and property management companies (PMCs) operate by supervising them. They also license their operations, and set up standards and codes of practice for property management. They also solve disputes and investigate complaints on claims of breach of the ordinance (Wong & Lai, 2021).

The PMSO has had broad positive effects on the property management profession, the industry, and the general public. It has improved how property management services are performed in the city through an oversight of facility and property management, and the operation of property services firms (Property Management Services Authority, 2020). Indeed, consistent with the PMSO, the PMSA is mandated to regulate, and decide on the direction of property management matters by imposing conditions that should be complied with for PMPs or PMCs to be licensed (Wong & Lai, 2021).

Through the PMSA, the PMSO has improved the safety and security of facilities by overseeing the operation or the provision of more directives on the functions of property management companies and property managers. For instance, the PMSO may suggest safety guidance that service contractors should follow in their design activities (Wong & Lai, 2021). This can particularly be vital when it comes to safety planning of a building and security management. In this way, facility managers overseeing the functions of service contractors could be liable if a breach in safety or security results from the negligence of these contractors (PMSA, 2020).

The PMSO has brought integrity, order and a sense of direction to the property management industry by setting out the functions and activities of the PMSA. It is only this basis that the PMSO regulates the activities of the property management services (PMSA, 2020). In so doing, the PMSO also encourages the integrity of property management firms and practitioners by making sure that their activities are ethical. This is beneficial to the industry as a whole, since property management services are bound to be considerably ethical.

By regulating the activities of property management companies (PMCs) and property management practitioners (PMPs), the PMSO plays a crucial role in assisting property owners to ensure that sound approaches are deployed in the proper management of buildings in Hong Kong (PMSA, 2020). This includes the deployment of multi-disciplinary professional input in the management of property, undertaking repair maintenance, facility management, asset management, finance management and property environment management.

To ensure that high standards are complied with, the licensing regime established by the PMSO sets out minimum qualification requirements that property management companies (PMCs) and property management practitioners (PMPs) can follow (PMSA, 2020). This is beneficial to the property management industry by raising professional standards pursued in the industry, along with increasing public awareness of the significance of hiring the services of competent PMC, and promoting the principles of safety management to maintain building safety.

The PMSO ensures efficiency in the management of PMCs. In effect, the PMSO operates using a single-tier licensing regime of property management companies to ensure that such businesses undertake their operations legally (PMSA, 2020). It also operates using a two-tier licensing regime of PMPs (Tier 1) license and (Tier 2) license to make sure that only practitioners who are competent and qualified as managers run the operations of PMCs, which are also subjected to licensing. In this way, only qualified practitioners are allowed to oversee the operations of PMCs to ensure efficiency in management (Wong & Lai, 2021).


Harvest Top Development Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Harbor View Garden ([2011] HKEC 32, LT),

Johnsey Estates Ltd v Lewis and Manley (Engineering) Ltd ((1987) 54 P & CR 296, CA (Eng)) A1

Leung, M., Chen, D., Wang, L. & Li, N. (2009). Benchmarking of management feeds for residential properties in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors. Retrieved 20 Oct 2021, from:

Property Management Services Authority. (2020). Commencement of provisions under Property Management Services Ordinance for implementing licensing regime by Property Management Services Authority. Retrieved 20 Oct 2021, from:

Rye v Purcell ([1926] 1 KB 446

Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552

Wong Pun-Man v Tung Fat Industrial Building (IO) ([1996] 1 HKD LR 32, LT),

Wong, Y. L. P., & Lai, J. (2021). On the Property Management Services Ordinance of Hong Kong: concerns and implications. Property Management.

Theme Park Operations Essay


     Hong Kong Disneyland is one of the largest theme parks located in Hong Kong with an estimated capacity of 5.6 million in a physical year. It is located in Penny’s Bay, a land reclaimed from the sea. The theme park is located inside the Disneyland resort which is owned and managed by the Hong Kong International theme parks. The park was opened in 2005, with Disney trying to incorporate Chinese culture in the building and designing of the park. The park has a capacity of 34000 visitors a week (Chan & Carrie, 2007). This park is open to the public, and it hosts different activities such as festivals, rides, movies and many other shows. This report is going to focus on the scope of assessment, the dimensions and attributes in relation to operational efficiency, justification of the attributes developed, observations and analysis of operational efficiency, and recommendations for improvement.

Scope of assessment

     Some of the significant factors that contribute to customer satisfaction and evaluation of theme parks is the service quality dimension. The report will therefore focus on the components of service quality dimension which include empathy which focuses on the attitude of the staff and how the visitors are handled when in the queue. Tangibles which include, presentations, cartoon based themes, enjoyment facilities and many more.  Assurance which focuses on the ability of the staff to accurately answer questions and the visitors’ experience within the park. Responsiveness focuses on the time taken in the queue and how willing the staff are to give guidance to the visitors. Lastly, service reliability focuses on the quality of food within the park, the accuracy of the services being delivered by the staff, and how reliable the facilities are.

Dimensions and attributes in relation to operational efficiency

     Customer satisfaction comes from the pleasant fulfillment of consumption experience and an evaluation process on the degree of consistency between pre-experience expectation and post-experience performance (Norvell, 2012). The quality of services offered within theme parks are considered efficient if the customers are satisfied with the services and operations of the park. Hong Kong Disneyland has experienced overcrowding problems. This interfered with the reliability of the services being provided within the park. The customers had to wait for a long time to be served in the restaurants. They equally had to wait in the queue for a long period of time in order to get rides.

In terms of assurance, Hong Kong Disneyland has good performance shows, engaging entertainment, and very impressive attraction sites for both the tourists and the locals. They are therefore very efficient in providing these services, however, there is not much assurance in the uniqueness of the park. The facilities, structures, and entertainment tend to be similar to other theme parks.

When looking at the empathy factor, the park is considered to have polite and welcoming staff ( Fong, 2019). This raises the efficiency of the park’s performance leading to more visitors being attracted to the park. However, the staff do not understand the visitors’ needs when waiting for services in the queue hence they do not control the queue effectively.

The cartoon characters in the park represent tangibility, which is satisfactory. However, people would love to have more enjoyable facilities. For purposes of reliability, it is agreeable that the availability facilities are safe and reliable. However, the food and beverages are considered to be overpriced. Hence the quality of the food does not meet the visitors’ expectations.

Lastly, the willingness of the staff to assist and guide the visitors is a service quality of responsiveness that has enhanced the performance of the park. However, the overcrowding and length of time taken in the queue is an issue that should be looked into as it interferes with the effective performance of the park.

Justification of the attributes developed

     The attributes developed are relevant to theme parks as they directly relate to the visitors visiting the park, or the park attendants. The analysis of the attributes help to identify the gaps that need to be worked on in order to improve the quality of services being provided in the park. This makes the services provided more efficient making the park more attractive. These important factors which contribute to service quality dimensions include, tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. These attributes help to measure the performance of the parks in terms of efficiency and providing quality services to the visitors.

Observation and analysis of operational efficiency

     Hong Kong Disneyland has been successful in carrying out some of its operations. Some aspects of the services provided in the park have been able to satisfy the visitors’ needs. However, there are still a lot of improvements to be made in terms of service attributes in order to attract more visitors and encourage those of who have visited the park to come back. Some of the major operational factors that may hinder visitors from recommending Disneyland Park include the high entry prices especially for those visiting for a short period of time. The food and beverages which are highly priced yet do not meet the visitors’ expectations, and the long queues in the restaurants and rides. There is therefore a need for the park to improve its service quality so as to attract more visitors.


     For more efficient operations in the park, the quality of food should be considered. Visitors want to get value for their money, hence they are willing to pay for good quality food. They could also offer discounts for some of their foods and beverages as a way of attracting more visitors. Due to the high population in the park, Disneyland should equally increase the number of seats within the park. This will enable them to accommodate more visitors during meal times.

     To decrease the waiting time in the queue for rides, the park should expand its facilities. It should also aim at providing unique services to avoid being similar to other parks. This will improve its efficiency and attraction to visitors.

     Moreover, more bins and toilets should be added in the park for ease of accessibility. The toilets should equally be cleaned frequently because of the high population in the park. The visitors may also be allowed to bring their food into the park to avoid overcrowding the restaurants and snack shops. This will also help with the queuing in the restaurants during meal times.

     Finally, Disneyland should invest in training its staff on how to handle visitor’s needs. They should be understanding, polite and well informed on the activities taking place within the park. This will give the visitors more confidence on the park operations and it will also boost the staff confidence making them freely interact with the visitors.


     Theme parks are important tourist and leisure activity centers. Their operations have however been neglected. It has been discovered that they should be well maintained and taken care of as they are important in society. Regular maintenance and safety measures should be put in place to ensure they operate efficiently to meet the visitors needs.. They should be efficiently operated to enhance culture, interaction, and educational activities among individuals and communities. Therefore, theme park operations should be carefully considered and their operations enhanced for inclusivity, leisure, and tourism activities.


Fong, F. (2019). Assessing Visitors Loyalty and Satisfaction of the Hong Kong Disneyland.

Norvell, T. A.  (2012). The long-term impact of service personnel practices on customer   attitudes and behavior. UGA