HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to refuse the stay because the intended appeal lacked arguable merit on the valuation and sale issues, the Applicants would suffer substantial and quantifiable financial loss if the auction were delayed, the undertaking offered by the 1st Respondent was sufficient security relative to the quantified difference, and therefore the balancing exercise favoured refusal of a stay of paragraph 245(d) of the Order dated 31 December 2015.

Citation
HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicants: 1st to 4th Applicants; Respondent: 1st Respondent; Respondents: 5th to 7th Respondents
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Case Number
LDCS8000/2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Against Order for Sale (lands Tribunal) / Hearing and Decision on Application for Stay and Leave to Appeal (tribunal Refused Leave and Refused Stay)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application for stay refused.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal, Order for Sale, Residual Development Value, Expert Evidence
Source Language
EN
Land Law Civil Procedure Property Valuation Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Order for Sale Residual Development Value Expert Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st to 4th Applicants

Applicants

1st Respondent

Respondent

5th to 7th Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Against Order for Sale (lands Tribunal) / Hearing and Decision on Application for Stay and Leave to Appeal (tribunal Refused Leave and Refused Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of execution of the sale order pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the undertaking/security offered is sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to refuse the stay because the intended appeal lacked arguable merit on the valuation and sale issues, the Applicants would suffer substantial and quantifiable financial loss if the auction were delayed, the undertaking offered by the 1st Respondent was sufficient security relative to the quantified difference, and therefore the balancing exercise favoured refusal of a stay of paragraph 245(d) of the Order dated 31 December 2015.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application for stay refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Application for stay of execution refused