SNOWLAND LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

SNOWLAND LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

The applicant, as registered owner immediately prior to reversion, is entitled to compensation under the LRO; the partition wall(s) did not render the proprietary interest an unauthorized structure for purposes of denying compensation because the three-dimensional proprietary interest exists irrespective of internal partitions, the partitions were likely exempt non-structural works under the BO (s41(3)), and sections 12(b) and 12(c) did not apply to extinguish the entitlement. On valuation, the Tribunal admitted late comparable T9 and allowed income-capitalisation cross-checking; it found substantial subjective adjustments under direct comparison reduced confidence in that method alone,...

Citation
SNOWLAND LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 November 2016
Case Number
LDLR2/2014
Procedural Posture
Determination of Compensation Under the Lands Resumption Ordinance (cap 124) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant; applicant entitled to compensation
Legal Topics
Compensation, Resumption, Unauthorized Structures, Valuation Methods, Direct Comparison, Income Capitalization, Comparables, Government Lease Covenants
Source Language
EN
Land Law Administrative Law Property Valuation Building Regulations Compulsory Acquisition Compensation Resumption Unauthorized Structures +5 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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Determination of Compensation Under the Lands Resumption Ordinance (cap 124) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to compensation despite subdivision/partition of the ground floor unit
  2. 2 Whether partition walls constituted unauthorized/illegal building works disentitling compensation under the LRO
  3. 3 Applicability of sections 12(b) and 12(c) LRO to deny compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, as registered owner immediately prior to reversion, is entitled to compensation under the LRO; the partition wall(s) did not render the proprietary interest an unauthorized structure for purposes of denying compensation because the three-dimensional proprietary interest exists irrespective of internal partitions, the partitions were likely exempt non-structural works under the BO (s41(3)), and sections 12(b) and 12(c) did not apply to extinguish the entitlement. On valuation, the Tribunal admitted late comparable T9 and allowed income-capitalisation cross-checking; it found substantial subjective adjustments under direct comparison reduced confidence in that method alone,...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant; applicant entitled to compensation

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant compensation for the Property in the sum of HKD 97,356,000
  • Matters of professional fees, interest and costs adjourned to a date to be fixed with liberty to apply for ancillary and consequential relief