Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  93 / 192 Next Page
Show Menu
Previous Page 93 / 192 Next Page
Page Background


A management committee is required by law


to display a notice concerning

particulars of the legal proceedings to which the owners’ corporation is a party in a

prominent place in the relevant building. It is generally sufficient for the capacity of the

parties (rather than their names), the case number, the forum of the case, the nature of

the case and the amount claimed or remedies sought under the Court action to be

disclosed in such notice.



The AAB considered the public display of letters/notices in building management in two

other cases. In AAB No. 10/2006, an open letter addressed to the complainant inviting

her to attend an owners’ meeting to discuss two pending litigations between the

Owners’ Corporation and the complainant was posted up at the lift lobbies of the

estate. Such public display of the letter was ruled by the AAB to be unnecessary and

have contravened DPP3 since the letter was also sent to the mailboxes of the residents

concerned. Similarly, in AAB 18/2014, the Incorporated Owners of an estate disclosed

the appellant’s name and address in a letter posted on the notice board of the estate

and circulated it to all residents of the estate. It was found by the AAB that disclosure of

such data was not necessary for the purpose of rebutting the allegations raised by the

appellant against the management committee of the Incorporated Owners in respect

of its handling of the repair work of the estate.


In AAB No. 13/2011, in response to a query raised at the owners’ meeting by a resident

as to why there were police vehicles frequently entering the estate, the chairman read

out an incident report. The complainant’s surname, gender and address were disclosed

in relation to her complaint made to the police against another resident for using the car

park for washing and repairing vehicles, thereby causing a nuisance. The AAB took the

view that the chairman’s act went beyond what was reasonably required for the

effective or efficient management of the estate. In discharging his duty as chairman of

the committee to answer a query from one of the residents, he could have simply stated

that a resident of the estate had made a complaint to the police about a nuisance

caused by another resident without disclosing any of the complainant’s personal data.

The AAB found that the motive of the chairman in this case was relevant in deciding

whether there was contravention of DPP3.


It can be seen from the above cases that although property management bodies are

charged with the duty to keep the owners informed about the management affairs

which affect their interests, they have to carefully consider and assess the necessity and

extent of the data disclosed about an individual, in particular when sensitive personal

data is involved. Information of an individual which is not necessary for the purpose of

the disclosure should be redacted or omitted from the document wherever practicable

before public display.


Section 26A of the Building Management Ordinance, Cap 344, Laws of Hong Kong


Reference can be made to

A Guide on Building Management Ordinance (Cap 344)

issued by the Home Affairs