- UID
- 339792
- 热情
- 17126
- 人气
- 22681
- 主题
- 204
- 帖子
- 4461
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 22326
- 分享
- 0
- 记录
- 0
- 相册
- 2
- 好友
- 0
- 日志
- 0
- 在线时间
- 9009 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-9-1
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 最后登录
- 2025-7-17
    
升级   11.63% - UID
- 339792
- 热情
- 17126
- 人气
- 22681
- 主题
- 204
- 帖子
- 4461
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 22326
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 注册时间
- 2012-9-1
|
陌生的香港人 发表于 2021-11-19 23:35 
為什麼你會這樣認為呢? 這是上訴法庭 不是disputes tribunal 啊
再說 鄰居錢不缺 賠償恐怕也擺不平呢 ...
We can wait and see the Court of Appeal decision.
I knew someone who just shared a view with me.
The case likely argued on "Equitable Estoper", ie if you allow someone to do something (ie by the council) and the innocent party acted on it (ie the developer") who applied and granted "non-notified" consent, it will be inequitable for the claimants (neighbours) to stop a project other than for the court to exercise monetary compensation if the neighbour can prove damages.
The damage could be payable by the Council, as the developer who through no fault on their own acted on Council's approval and erect the building. It is the Council who own the neighbour a duty of care when approving the project.
While this is just a discussion, we will see what the Court of Appeal will decide.
补充内容 (2021-11-20 00:17):
*equitable estoppel (correction on typo error)
补充内容 (2021-11-20 00:38):
The delay in bringing the action by the neighbour is likely to influence Court of Appeal decision, that is, the project is near 90% completion as oppose to project that has not started.
补充内容 (2021-11-20 00:41):
The argument of equitable estoppel will likely comes in and meaning to say the neighbour will have to prove damages rather than stopping the project. How to quantify their damages is another thesis? |
|