FIRST KIND LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHOI FEI MAN RONNIE AND ANOTHER

FIRST KIND LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHOI FEI MAN RONNIE AND ANOTHER

The Tribunal held that (a) it has a discretionary power under s.4(6)(a)(i) to direct synchronized or joint sales but cannot make an order whose subject‑matter extends beyond the lots specified in each original application; accordingly reserve prices must be set in respect of each application and the final reserve...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
FIRST KIND LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHOI FEI MAN RONNIE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: FIRST KIND LIMITED; 1st Respondent: CHOI FEI MAN RONNIE; 2nd Respondent: WONG LAI KING; 3rd Respondent: KWAN MING FAI; 4th Respondent: NG CHEUNG FONG; 5th Respondent: CHAN WUN CHEUNG; 6th Respondent: CHAN WANG KIN; 7th Respondent: CHIANG KWOK KEUNG; 8th Respondent: MAK PING YIM
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 January 2017
Case Number
LDCS13000/2014
Procedural Posture
Land Compulsory Sale Application (lcsro) / Hearing on Leave to Appeal and Costs Variation After Tribunal Decision (post‑decision Procedural Applications)
Outcome
Mixed: application by R1 in CS‑13 for leave to appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted to other named respondents; costs order nisi made absolute; detailed costs orders and taxation allocations made.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Sale, Reserve Price Assessment, Leave to Appeal, Costs, Res Judicata / Issue Estoppel, Statutory Construction
Source Language
en
Property Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Constitutional Law Compulsory Sale Reserve Price Assessment Leave to Appeal Costs +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FIRST KIND LIMITED

Applicant

CHOI FEI MAN RONNIE

1st Respondent

WONG LAI KING

2nd Respondent

KWAN MING FAI

3rd Respondent

NG CHEUNG FONG

4th Respondent

CHAN WUN CHEUNG

5th Respondent

CHAN WANG KIN

6th Respondent

CHIANG KWOK KEUNG

7th Respondent

MAK PING YIM

8th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Compulsory Sale Application (lcsro) / Hearing on Leave to Appeal and Costs Variation After Tribunal Decision (post‑decision Procedural Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lands Tribunal has power under the LCSRO to order sale of adjoining lots from separate applications together in one auction (s.4(6) scope)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal can direct the reserve price to be set on a merged‑site basis (Schedule 2 para 2) when lots from different applications are sold together
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal must exercise any such discretion to order combined sale when redevelopment potential is proved

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that (a) it has a discretionary power under s.4(6)(a)(i) to direct synchronized or joint sales but cannot make an order whose subject‑matter extends beyond the lots specified in each original application; accordingly reserve prices must be set in respect of each application and the final reserve for a combined auction will be the aggregate of the individual reserves; (b) R1 in CS‑13 is estopped from seeking leave to appeal because he had consented to be bound and taken no part in proceedings (issue estoppel); (c) leave to appeal was granted to the other participating respondents because their appeals raise arguable points of law of public importance and meet the...

Court Disposition

Mixed: application by R1 in CS‑13 for leave to appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted to other named respondents; costs order nisi made absolute; detailed costs orders and taxation allocations made.

Orders

  • Application by R1 in LDCS13000 for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Leave to appeal granted to R2 in LDCS12000, R2 in LDCS13000, R2 in LDCS14000, R1,R2,R3 in LDCS15000 and R1–R8 in LDCS20000 in respect of specified legal questions