DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

The Court held that 'godown purposes' does not naturally include open land mid-stream storage and dismissed PBIC's appeal on that point; and held that for the after valuation the correct hypothesis is to assume at the valuation date that the reclamation (the cause of loss of marine rights) was certain to proceed, so...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD
Parties
Applicant (appellant in FACV 1/2017; Respondent in FACV 2 9/2017): Penny's Bay Investment Company Limited; Respondent (appellant in FACV 2 9/2017; Respondent in FACV 1/2017): Director of Lands
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 October 2017
Case Number
FACV6/2017
Procedural Posture
Final Appeal (court of Final Appeal) / Judgment Delivered; Remitted to Lands Tribunal for Further Proceedings
Outcome
PBIC's appeal dismissed; Director of Lands' appeal allowed; matters remitted to Lands Tribunal; order as to costs in favour of Director
Legal Topics
Compensation for Injurious Affection, Interpretation of Restrictive User Covenants, Valuation Assumptions and Hypotheses, Reclamation Authorisation, Betterment and Set Off
Source Language
en
Property Law Administrative Law Land Valuation Statutory Compensation Contract Interpretation Compensation for Injurious Affection Interpretation of Restrictive User Covenants Valuation Assumptions and Hypotheses +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penny's Bay Investment Company Limited

Applicant (appellant in FACV 1/2017; Respondent in FACV 2 9/2017)

Director of Lands

Respondent (appellant in FACV 2 9/2017; Respondent in FACV 1/2017)

Procedural Posture

Final Appeal (court of Final Appeal) / Judgment Delivered; Remitted to Lands Tribunal for Further Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'godown purposes' in the grant includes open land mid-stream storage use
  2. 2 Whether the after valuation as at 5 May 1995 should assume the CT Scheme (and associated reclamation) was certain to proceed
  3. 3 Whether events after the date of authorisation (5 May 1995) may be taken into account in valuation under FSRO s12

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that 'godown purposes' does not naturally include open land mid-stream storage and dismissed PBIC's appeal on that point; and held that for the after valuation the correct hypothesis is to assume at the valuation date that the reclamation (the cause of loss of marine rights) was certain to proceed, so the Director's appeal on valuation assumption is allowed; the matter is remitted to the Lands Tribunal for determination of remaining issues.

Court Disposition

PBIC's appeal dismissed; Director of Lands' appeal allowed; matters remitted to Lands Tribunal; order as to costs in favour of Director

Orders

  • PBIC's appeal dismissed
  • Director of Lands' appeal allowed