CENTURY TREASURE LTD AND ANOTHER v. OR PUI KWAN AND OTHERS
The tribunal granted the compulsory sale order: it found (1) the applicants met the statutory ownership threshold under the Notice, (2) the Building is obsolete and in poor repair so redevelopment is justified under section 4(2)(a), (3) the applicants took reasonable steps to acquire remaining shares under section 4(2)(b) because offers reflected proportionate shares of RDV and fell within fair and reasonable range, (4) Schedule 2(2) requires the reserve price to be based on redevelopment potential of the subject lots on their own and excludes merged site uplift absent clear evidence, (5) the constitutional challenge to excluding merged site factor failed, and (6) on valuation evidence...
- Citation
- [2023] HKLdT 55
- Parties
- 1st Applicant: Century Treasure Limited; 2nd Applicant: Universal Support Limited; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent (Flat A/B/C on 2nd Floor etc); 2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent; 3rd Respondent: 3rd Respondent; 4th Respondent: 4th Respondent; 5th Respondent: 5th Respondent; 6th Respondent: 6th Respondent; 7th Respondent: 7th Respondent (mentally incapacitated; represented by Committee R4)
- Court
- Lands Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 7 September 2023
- Case Number
- LDCS4000/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance Application / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Order for sale granted in favour of the applicants
- Legal Topics
- Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment, Redevelopment Justification (age/state of Repair), Valuation (euv and Rdv), Reserve Price Setting, Merged Site Factor/hope Value, Reasonable Steps to Acquire Minority Shares, Site Classification and Setback
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Century Treasure Limited
1st Applicant
Universal Support Limited
2nd Applicant
1st Respondent (Flat A/B/C on 2nd Floor etc)
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
3rd Respondent
4th Respondent
4th Respondent
5th Respondent
5th Respondent
6th Respondent
6th Respondent
7th Respondent (mentally incapacitated; represented by Committee R4)
7th Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance Application / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 What is the existing use value (EUV) of all units as at 25 January 2021?
- 2 Whether redevelopment of the lots is justified due to age and/or state of repair under section 4(2)(a) of the Ordinance
- 3 Whether applicants took reasonable steps to acquire all undivided shares under section 4(2)(b)
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal granted the compulsory sale order: it found (1) the applicants met the statutory ownership threshold under the Notice, (2) the Building is obsolete and in poor repair so redevelopment is justified under section 4(2)(a), (3) the applicants took reasonable steps to acquire remaining shares under section 4(2)(b) because offers reflected proportionate shares of RDV and fell within fair and reasonable range, (4) Schedule 2(2) requires the reserve price to be based on redevelopment potential of the subject lots on their own and excludes merged site uplift absent clear evidence, (5) the constitutional challenge to excluding merged site factor failed, and (6) on valuation evidence...
Court Disposition
Order for sale granted in favour of the applicants
Orders
- All undivided shares in the Lots to be sold by public auction for redevelopment purposes
- Mr Cheung Wood Keung and Ms Mok Ka Cheuk Cecilia appointed as trustees to carry out sale duties under the Ordinance
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment