He said that the law mandates occupiers to take steps to ensure that those using the property – including subtenants, employees of businesses, and visitors such as customers – do not interfere with the “peaceful enjoyment” of the subsidiary proprietor of another unit or other people using the common property.
“The law also says a subsidiary proprietor and occupier shall not use their premises for any illegal or vice activities which may be injurious to the reputation of the subdivided building,” he added.
NEED FOR SUFFICIENT PROOF
There must also be sufficient proof before a court order can be made, said Mr Lam, pointing to the material that was supplied to the court in the five cases.
“The court requires sufficient evidence on what we call ‘balance of probability’. So the best evidence will be photographs, videos and tape recordings – that’s the bare minimum they need to provide to the court,” he said.
He added that he does not see a long drawn-out process for the disputes as public entertainment operations in Orchard Towers cease.
“If you don’t have a licence to operate and you continue to operate, it will ultimately lead to regulatory actions being taken,” he said.
