DEACON Te-KEN CHIU v. RONALD LI-KAI CHU AND OTHERS

DEACON Te-KEN CHIU v. RONALD LI-KAI CHU AND OTHERS

Because the Schedule to the Tomlin order provided a mechanism for objection and there was no binding agreement preventing court intervention, the court had jurisdiction to appoint a new surveyor. The LCH report contained material defects (inadequate analysis of rental derivation, inappropriate yield selection, and failure to address redevelopment/Hope Value), making it unreliable; consequently the petitioner's application for a new surveyor succeeded and costs were awarded to the petitioner.

Citation
DEACON Te-KEN CHIU v. RONALD LI-KAI CHU AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: DEACON Te-KEN CHIU; 1st Respondent: RONALD LI-KAI CHU; 2nd Respondent: PANG BIG FEI (alias PANG PIK FAI); 3rd Respondent: TANG FOOK TAI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2006
Case Number
HCMP1071/1990
Procedural Posture
High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings (hcmp1071/1990) / Judgment on Application to Appoint a New Surveyor
Outcome
Application granted; petition allowed in terms of the application
Legal Topics
Appointment of Expert/surveyor, Tomlin Order and Schedule, Finality of Valuer's Report, Market Value Vs Hope Value, Costs, Jurisdiction to Review Expert Determinations
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Valuation Law Settlement Agreements Appointment of Expert/surveyor Tomlin Order and Schedule Finality of Valuer's Report +3 more

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DEACON Te-KEN CHIU

Petitioner

RONALD LI-KAI CHU

1st Respondent

PANG BIG FEI (alias PANG PIK FAI)

2nd Respondent

TANG FOOK TAI

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings (hcmp1071/1990) / Judgment on Application to Appoint a New Surveyor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to appoint a new surveyor under the terms of the Tomlin order
  2. 2 Whether the valuer's report appointed pursuant to the settlement was final and binding
  3. 3 Whether the valuation should consider Hope Value/redevelopment value and appropriate valuation methodology

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Schedule to the Tomlin order provided a mechanism for objection and there was no binding agreement preventing court intervention, the court had jurisdiction to appoint a new surveyor. The LCH report contained material defects (inadequate analysis of rental derivation, inappropriate yield selection, and failure to address redevelopment/Hope Value), making it unreliable; consequently the petitioner's application for a new surveyor succeeded and costs were awarded to the petitioner.

Court Disposition

Application granted; petition allowed in terms of the application

Orders

  • Order appointing another surveyor to assess the market value of the property as sought by the petitioner
  • Costs awarded to the petitioner