ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Leave to appeal refused because respondent failed to show a point of law with a reasonable prospect of success and failed to adduces evidence at trial to displace the Prime+1% presumption; Tribunal exercised its discretion appropriately; costs awarded to applicant.

Citation
ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Case Number
LDLR4/2013
Procedural Posture
Compensation Determination Under Lands Resumption Ordinance (cap 124) / Application for Leave to Appeal (inter Partes Summons)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Judgment Interest, Leave to Appeal, Compensation Assessment, Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
EN
Land Law Administrative Law Appeal Property Valuation Interest on Compensation Pre Judgment Interest Leave to Appeal Compensation Assessment +1 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compensation Determination Under Lands Resumption Ordinance (cap 124) / Application for Leave to Appeal (inter Partes Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law or in the exercise of discretion in fixing interest under section 17(3A) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account alternative approaches to fixing pre-judgment interest (eg Bank of England base rate +1%, fixed low rates adopted in some authorities, or deposit rates under s17(3B))
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant evidence including the rental income of the resumed property when fixing interest

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because respondent failed to show a point of law with a reasonable prospect of success and failed to adduces evidence at trial to displace the Prime+1% presumption; Tribunal exercised its discretion appropriately; costs awarded to applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Respondent to pay applicant costs of the application for leave to appeal with certificate for counsel, to be taxed at High Court scale if not agreed