馮慶及另一人(以萬安膠輪公司的名營業) v. 地政總署署長

馮慶及另一人(以萬安膠輪公司的名營業) v. 地政總署署長

The Tribunal found that, given the parties' prior negotiations, the proximity of the trial date and the context of offers and counter-offers, it was not unreasonable for the Respondent to require acceptance by 4 January 2008; accordingly the Applicants acted unreasonably in refusing the Calderbank offer and costs were apportioned: Respondent to pay Applicants' costs up to and including 2 January 2008; Applicants to pay Respondent's costs from 3 January 2008; costs to be taxed on High Court scale with certificate for counsel; professional fees to be assessed if not agreed.

Citation
馮慶及另一人(以萬安膠輪公司的名營業) v. 地政總署署長
Parties
Applicant: Applicants; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2008
Case Number
LDLR3/2006
Procedural Posture
Compensation Under Lands Resumption Ordinance (cap.124) / Costs Assessment Post Trial
Outcome
Split costs order: Respondent to pay Applicants' professional fees and costs up to and including 2 January 2008; Applicants to pay Respondent's professional fees and costs from 3 January 2008; costs to be taxed on High Court scale with certificate for counsel; professional fees to be assessed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Compensation, Loss of Goodwill, Severance Payments, Calderbank Offers, Costs Discretion, Payment Into Court
Source Language
EN
Land Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Compulsory Acquisition Costs Compensation Loss of Goodwill Severance Payments +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 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicants

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compensation Under Lands Resumption Ordinance (cap.124) / Costs Assessment Post Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants acted unreasonably in refusing the Respondent's Calderbank offer dated 2 January 2008
  2. 2 Whether the short period allowed to accept the offer was sufficient
  3. 3 Whether payment into court principles apply to Lands Tribunal compensation claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, given the parties' prior negotiations, the proximity of the trial date and the context of offers and counter-offers, it was not unreasonable for the Respondent to require acceptance by 4 January 2008; accordingly the Applicants acted unreasonably in refusing the Calderbank offer and costs were apportioned: Respondent to pay Applicants' costs up to and including 2 January 2008; Applicants to pay Respondent's costs from 3 January 2008; costs to be taxed on High Court scale with certificate for counsel; professional fees to be assessed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Split costs order: Respondent to pay Applicants' professional fees and costs up to and including 2 January 2008; Applicants to pay Respondent's professional fees and costs from 3 January 2008; costs to be taxed on High Court scale with certificate for counsel; professional fees to be assessed if not agreed.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay the Applicants professional fees and costs for the proceedings incurred up to and including 2 January 2008
  • Applicants to pay the Respondent professional fees and costs starting from 3 January 2008