GREAT MIGHTY LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

GREAT MIGHTY LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

The court held the operative government policy on HPA/SA is contained in the LegCo/Finance Committee papers (the approved policy) which include an actual user criterion; the Information Pamphlet was only a general guideline and did not create a clear, unambiguous representation giving rise to a legitimate expectation; failure to call URA staff did not amount to fatal procedural unfairness though non‑disclosure of adverse documents raises fairness concerns; on those bases the applicants' legal challenge failed.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1171
Parties
Applicant: Great Mighty Ltd; Applicant: Both Host International Ltd; 1st Respondent: Director of Lands; 2nd Respondent: Home Purchase Allowance Appeals Committee
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2018
Case Number
HCAL125/2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Home Purchase Allowance, Supplementary Allowance, Legitimate Expectation, Procedural Fairness, Disclosure of Adverse Materials, Urban Renewal Surveys
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Public Law Property Law Land Resumption Law Administrative Law Home Purchase Allowance Supplementary Allowance Legitimate Expectation +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Mighty Ltd

Applicant

Both Host International Ltd

Applicant

Director of Lands

1st Respondent

Home Purchase Allowance Appeals Committee

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Supplementary Allowance (SA) eligibility depends on the nature of premises or on actual user at time of surveys
  2. 2 Whether the Information Pamphlet created a clear and unambiguous legitimate expectation that tenanted domestic premises would receive full SA regardless of actual user
  3. 3 Whether the Director and Appeals Committee breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose documents and by not calling URA survey staff for cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the operative government policy on HPA/SA is contained in the LegCo/Finance Committee papers (the approved policy) which include an actual user criterion; the Information Pamphlet was only a general guideline and did not create a clear, unambiguous representation giving rise to a legitimate expectation; failure to call URA staff did not amount to fatal procedural unfairness though non‑disclosure of adverse documents raises fairness concerns; on those bases the applicants' legal challenge failed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Applications dismissed