WAH HA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. ROSEHAWK GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

WAH HA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. ROSEHAWK GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal refused because applicants had no realistic prospect of success: they failed to satisfy the statutory per‑lot ownership threshold (section 3(2)(a)) and could not rely on aggregation under the DMC absent the section 3(2)(b) common‑staircase exception; additionally, tribunal’s factual conclusion that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKLdT 24
Parties
1st Applicant: WAH HA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 2nd Applicants: CAROLAN, PAUL JOHN and CHIU, YEE PING GIGI; 3rd Applicant: TENDY LIMITED; 4th Applicant: WU PUI KWAN GWENNY; 5th Applicant: BUTTON MICHAEL GEOFFREY; 6th Applicant: SENSE WELL INVESTMENT LIMITED; 7th Applicant: RICH SUPER INVESTMENT LIMITED; 8th Applicants: SHIRLEY HUANG and HUGO CHRISTOPHER BARRETT; 9th Applicant: UNICOME INVESTMENT LIMITED; 10th Applicants: PETER THOMAS MURPHY and KAY MCARDLE; 11th Applicant: SUNLAND (ASIA) LIMITED; 12th Applicant: HARMONY LOYAL LIMITED; 13th Applicant: GOLDHILL CORPORATION LIMITED; 14th Applicant: INDEPENDENT SERVICES LIMITED; 15th Applicant: HONG KONG WELLWIN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 16th Applicant: JADE WATER GROUP LIMITED; 1st Respondent: ROSEHAWK GROUP LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: DRAGON ERA INVESTMENT LIMITED; 3rd Respondent: HUGGINS, ADRIAN ARMSTRONG; 4th Respondents: NORMAN, LYLE and JOAN GWENDOLINE, LYLE
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 April 2023
Case Number
LDCS25000/2018
Procedural Posture
Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance Application / Leave to Appeal (application Refused)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs order nisi made absolute
Legal Topics
Compulsory Sale, Redevelopment, Undivided Shares Calculation, Statutory Interpretation, Reasonable Steps to Acquire, Costs, Conduct of Counsel
Source Language
en
Land Law Property Law Civil Procedure Professional Conduct Compulsory Sale Redevelopment Undivided Shares Calculation Statutory Interpretation +3 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAH HA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

1st Applicant

CAROLAN, PAUL JOHN and CHIU, YEE PING GIGI

2nd Applicants

TENDY LIMITED

3rd Applicant

WU PUI KWAN GWENNY

4th Applicant

BUTTON MICHAEL GEOFFREY

5th Applicant

SENSE WELL INVESTMENT LIMITED

6th Applicant

RICH SUPER INVESTMENT LIMITED

7th Applicant

SHIRLEY HUANG and HUGO CHRISTOPHER BARRETT

8th Applicants

UNICOME INVESTMENT LIMITED

9th Applicant

PETER THOMAS MURPHY and KAY MCARDLE

10th Applicants

SUNLAND (ASIA) LIMITED

11th Applicant

HARMONY LOYAL LIMITED

12th Applicant

GOLDHILL CORPORATION LIMITED

13th Applicant

INDEPENDENT SERVICES LIMITED

14th Applicant

HONG KONG WELLWIN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

15th Applicant

JADE WATER GROUP LIMITED

16th Applicant

ROSEHAWK GROUP LIMITED

1st Respondent

DRAGON ERA INVESTMENT LIMITED

2nd Respondent

HUGGINS, ADRIAN ARMSTRONG

3rd Respondent

NORMAN, LYLE and JOAN GWENDOLINE, LYLE

4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance Application / Leave to Appeal (application Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants met the per‑lot ownership threshold (80%) under section 3(2)(a) or could aggregate undivided shares across lots governed by a single DMC
  2. 2 Whether the Development’s age and state of repair justified compulsory redevelopment under section 4(2)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because applicants had no realistic prospect of success: they failed to satisfy the statutory per‑lot ownership threshold (section 3(2)(a)) and could not rely on aggregation under the DMC absent the section 3(2)(b) common‑staircase exception; additionally, tribunal’s factual conclusion that redevelopment was not justified on age/state of repair was entitled to deference; costs order nisi therefore became absolute.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs order nisi made absolute

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Applicants pay costs of these proceedings to 1st and 2nd respondents with certificate for one counsel for each, to be taxed on the High Court scale if not agreed