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

The application was dismissed because applicants failed to satisfy the statutory ownership threshold for Lot 299 under s3(2)(a) (they did not own over the requisite 80% of undivided shares in that lot) and, in any event, the Tribunal was not satisfied that redevelopment was justified on grounds of age or state of repair under s4(2)(a); ancillary findings: valuation report complied with timing requirements, offers constituted reasonable steps, EUVs adopted excluding UBWs.

Citation
[2021] HKLdT 27
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
30 April 2021
Case Number
LDCS25000/2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (cap 545) / Judgment Delivered by Lands Tribunal (30 April 2021)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment, Majority Ownership Threshold, Reasonable Steps to Acquire Undivided Shares, Age and State of Repair, Existing Use Value (euv), Redevelopment Value (rdv), Unauthorised Building Works (ubw), Deed of Mutual Covenant Interpretation, Costs
Source Language
EN
Real Property Land Law Valuation Building Regulation Enforcement Civil Procedure Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment Majority Ownership Threshold Reasonable Steps to Acquire Undivided Shares +6 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 7
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

Application Under Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (cap 545) / Judgment Delivered by Lands Tribunal (30 April 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants met statutory ownership threshold under s3 of Cap 545 for each lot (Lot 299)
  2. 2 Whether applicants took reasonable steps to acquire all undivided shares under s4(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether redevelopment justified by age or state of repair under s4(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because applicants failed to satisfy the statutory ownership threshold for Lot 299 under s3(2)(a) (they did not own over the requisite 80% of undivided shares in that lot) and, in any event, the Tribunal was not satisfied that redevelopment was justified on grounds of age or state of repair under s4(2)(a); ancillary findings: valuation report complied with timing requirements, offers constituted reasonable steps, EUVs adopted excluding UBWs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicants to pay costs of these proceedings (including any reserved costs) to 1st and 2nd respondents with certificate for one counsel each to be taxed on the High Court scale if not agreed; costs order nisi to become absolute after 14 days unless varied by summons