That's right, you are not a lawyer and you are reading way too much into this case.
Like I said earlier, the ruling is VERY limited, to a particular set of facts at a particular property. Basically, there was a "House Rule" (Rule 3) at that estate made by the management company that said "no dogs". The authority to make House Rules at the estate comes from a binding deed of mutual covenant. This particular deed of covenant only allowed the management company to make rules for the common areas and did not allow the management company to make rules for the owners' units. Because the house rule (no dogs) applied to owners' units, it was void. Deeds of covenant in HK can still prohibit keeping of animals or allow management companies to make the determination by granting them the proper authority.

Originally Posted by thundacatchergo:
check TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER - [2008] HKDC 261; DCCJ001704/2007, 30 September 2008
it goes something like this:
"In my Judgment keeping a pet in one’s premises is within the right and privilege of the owner/occupant in enjoying his premises. By prohibiting the owners/occupants from keeping dogs in their flats, I find that Rule 3 does interfere with the owners’/occupiers’ right to exclusive use occupation and enjoyment of their flats provided under Clause 1 of the DMC. The fact that some dogs may cause nuisance to other residents is no justification for adopting a broadbrush approach in disallowing all owners to keep dogs (however small). In particular, when taking into account Clause 9(1) DMC have already provided means/measures against possible nuisance that may be caused by dogs."
i aint no lawyer. get a lawyer for legal issues.