ABLE LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. BOLY METAL MANUFACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

ABLE LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. BOLY METAL MANUFACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

The tribunal held that 'industrial zone' in the Notice means a zone formally designated for industrial use in the OZP; an OU(B) designation is distinct and not an industrial zone, so the Lot qualified for the reduced threshold under the Notice; revitalization was not a viable alternative on the facts and offered no reasonable prospect of success on appeal, therefore leave to appeal and stay were refused and costs awarded.

Citation
[2022] HKLdT 52
Parties
1st Applicant: Able Luck Development Limited (加福發展有限公司); 2nd Applicant: Biel Crystal Manufactory Limited (伯恩光學有限公司); 3rd Applicant: Manway Corporation Limited (文威有限公司); 4th Applicant: Huge Wise Trading Limited (廣智貿易有限公司); 5th Applicant: Sky Huge Development Limited (廣天發展有限公司); 6th Applicant: Nice Express Development Limited (益通發展有限公司); 7th Applicant: Able Wide Corporation Limited (廣能有限公司); 8th Applicant: Well Nice Corporation Limited (佳美有限公司); 9th Applicant: High Smart Industrial Limited (領俊實業有限公司); 1st Respondent (discontinued): Boly Metal Manufactory Limited (寶利金屬製品有限公司); 2nd Respondent (discontinued): CHENG SING KUN (鄭誠根); 3rd Respondent (discontinued): yuen pui kiu (阮佩翹); 4th Respondent: pawling limited; 5th Respondent (discontinued): henson & company limted (漢信洋行有限公司); 6th Respondent (discontinued): psk limited; 7th Respondent (discontinued): lee son wong; 8th Respondent (discontinued): ng cheung fui (吳翔奎)
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Case Number
LDCS11000/2018
Procedural Posture
Land Compulsory Sale (redevelopment) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution (refused)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; stay of execution refused; costs ordered against 4th Respondent.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Sale, Zoning, Statutory Interpretation, Revitalization, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Planning and Zoning Administrative Law Civil Procedure Compulsory Sale Zoning Statutory Interpretation Revitalization +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Able Luck Development Limited (加福發展有限公司)

1st Applicant

Biel Crystal Manufactory Limited (伯恩光學有限公司)

2nd Applicant

Manway Corporation Limited (文威有限公司)

3rd Applicant

Huge Wise Trading Limited (廣智貿易有限公司)

4th Applicant

Sky Huge Development Limited (廣天發展有限公司)

5th Applicant

Nice Express Development Limited (益通發展有限公司)

6th Applicant

Able Wide Corporation Limited (廣能有限公司)

7th Applicant

Well Nice Corporation Limited (佳美有限公司)

8th Applicant

High Smart Industrial Limited (領俊實業有限公司)

9th Applicant

Boly Metal Manufactory Limited (寶利金屬製品有限公司)

1st Respondent (discontinued)

CHENG SING KUN (鄭誠根)

2nd Respondent (discontinued)

yuen pui kiu (阮佩翹)

3rd Respondent (discontinued)

pawling limited

4th Respondent

henson & company limted (漢信洋行有限公司)

5th Respondent (discontinued)

psk limited

6th Respondent (discontinued)

lee son wong

7th Respondent (discontinued)

ng cheung fui (吳翔奎)

8th Respondent (discontinued)

Procedural Posture

Land Compulsory Sale (redevelopment) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an OU(B) zone qualifies as an "industrial zone" under section 2 of the Notice
  2. 2 Whether the Lot qualified for the reduced 80% ownership threshold under sections 3 and 4 of the Notice
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal should have considered revitalization as an alternative to redevelopment

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that 'industrial zone' in the Notice means a zone formally designated for industrial use in the OZP; an OU(B) designation is distinct and not an industrial zone, so the Lot qualified for the reduced threshold under the Notice; revitalization was not a viable alternative on the facts and offered no reasonable prospect of success on appeal, therefore leave to appeal and stay were refused and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; stay of execution refused; costs ordered against 4th Respondent.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Stay of execution refused