COURAGE INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. GO SIN LI alias WU SHEN LI AND OTHERS

COURAGE INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. GO SIN LI alias WU SHEN LI AND OTHERS

The Tribunal refused the application to vary the costs order nisi and maintained there should be no order as to costs: the compensation approach from compulsory acquisition authorities does not automatically displace the Tribunal's discretion under Section 12 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance; the 4th respondent did not actively participate or oppose the application and possessory title does not confer entitlement to registration that would change costs analysis, therefore costs variation was refused.

Citation
[2022] HKLdT 7
Parties
1st Applicant: Courage Investments Limited; 2nd Applicant: Century Island Holdings Limited; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent (registered owner, deceased); 4th Respondent (joined): Ng Chi Hing; Joined Party / Alleged Possessory Title Claimant: Sit Oi Yam
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 January 2022
Case Number
LDCS17000/2020
Procedural Posture
Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Application / Costs Decision After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Request by 4th respondent to vary costs order refused; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment, Costs Allocation, Minority Owners, Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition, Possessory Title Vs Registered Title
Source Language
EN
Land Law Procedure Costs Law Property Registration Adverse Possession Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment Costs Allocation Minority Owners +2 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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Courage Investments Limited

1st Applicant

Century Island Holdings Limited

2nd Applicant

1st Respondent (registered owner, deceased)

1st Respondent

Ng Chi Hing

4th Respondent (joined)

Sit Oi Yam

Joined Party / Alleged Possessory Title Claimant

Procedural Posture

Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Application / Costs Decision After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be ordered to pay the 4th respondent's costs on the High Court scale
  2. 2 Whether the compensation approach applied in compulsory acquisition cases requires the acquiring authority to pay opponents' litigation costs in compulsory sale proceedings
  3. 3 Whether a person holding a possessory title by adverse possession is entitled to be registered as owner for the purposes of costs and party status

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the application to vary the costs order nisi and maintained there should be no order as to costs: the compensation approach from compulsory acquisition authorities does not automatically displace the Tribunal's discretion under Section 12 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance; the 4th respondent did not actively participate or oppose the application and possessory title does not confer entitlement to registration that would change costs analysis, therefore costs variation was refused.

Court Disposition

Request by 4th respondent to vary costs order refused; no order as to costs

Orders

  • No order as to costs for the compulsory sale application; the request dated 31 December 2021 to vary the costs order nisi is refused