93 / 192
7.48
A management committee is required by law
18
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.
19
7.49
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.
7.50
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.
7.51
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.
18
Section 26A of the Building Management Ordinance, Cap 344, Laws of Hong Kong
19
Reference can be made to
A Guide on Building Management Ordinance (Cap 344)
issued by the Home Affairs
Department.