CHAN KWOK FAI 對 房屋署署長

CHAN KWOK FAI 對 房屋署署長

Although the tribunal accepted the respondent's valuation methodology and the final figure was numerically closer to the respondent's valuation, the appellant was overall successful on the appeal and did not conduct the proceedings unreasonably to an extent that would justify awarding costs to the respondent; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKLdT 76
Parties
Appellant: CHAN KWOK FAI; Respondent: Director of Housing (房屋署署長)
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 September 2024
Case Number
LDHA3/2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Housing Ordinance (ldha 3/2023) / Post Judgment Costs Application (non Final Review Application Heard 5 Aug 2024; Judgment 4 Sep 2024)
Outcome
No order as to costs for the appeal; respondent ordered to pay appellant costs of the non-final review application on a provisional District Court scale basis; assessment procedure set if parties disagree
Legal Topics
Market Value Assessment, Costs Entitlement and Assessment, Requirement for Supporting Affidavits, Reasonableness and Proportionality of Costs
Source Language
ch
Housing Law Property Valuation Civil Procedure Costs Law Market Value Assessment Costs Entitlement and Assessment Requirement for Supporting Affidavits Reasonableness and Proportionality of Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN KWOK FAI

Appellant

Director of Housing (房屋署署長)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Housing Ordinance (ldha 3/2023) / Post Judgment Costs Application (non Final Review Application Heard 5 Aug 2024; Judgment 4 Sep 2024)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to an order for costs despite the appellant achieving overall success on the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the non-final review application introducing additional factual material required a supporting affidavit under High Court Rules Order 32 r.1
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's claimed costs were reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute

Ratio Decidendi

Although the tribunal accepted the respondent's valuation methodology and the final figure was numerically closer to the respondent's valuation, the appellant was overall successful on the appeal and did not conduct the proceedings unreasonably to an extent that would justify awarding costs to the respondent; the respondent's failure to file a supporting affidavit did not mandate dismissal where the appellant was aware of the material and did not seek adjournment; the respondent's claimed costs were excessive and disproportionate to a primarily valuation (not legal) dispute. Result: no costs order for the appeal; provisional order that respondent pay appellant the costs of the non-final...

Court Disposition

No order as to costs for the appeal; respondent ordered to pay appellant costs of the non-final review application on a provisional District Court scale basis; assessment procedure set if parties disagree

Orders

  • No order as to costs in respect of the appeal (LDHA 3/2023)
  • Provisional order: Respondent to pay appellant costs of the non-final review application on the District Court scale; this provisional order will become absolute unless varied by application within 14 days