BOTH HOST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

BOTH HOST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

The Court held that the operative policy on SA was to be found in the LegCo/Finance Committee papers approved for funding and not in the Information Pamphlet; therefore no clear, unqualified representation in the Pamphlet gave rise to a legitimate expectation enforceable against the Director; failure to call URA survey staff went to weight of evidence rather than fatal procedural unfairness, although there is a general duty to disclose adverse materials relied upon by the decision-maker.

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
HCAL126/2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Home Purchase Allowance, Supplementary Allowance, Legitimate Expectation, Procedural Fairness, Land Resumption Compensation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Land Law Public Law Home Purchase Allowance Supplementary Allowance Legitimate Expectation Procedural Fairness +1 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 6 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 (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants had a legitimate expectation based on the Information Pamphlet to be paid SA irrespective of actual user
  2. 2 Whether the relevant Government policy for SA is contained in the Information Pamphlet or in LegCo/Finance Committee papers
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness arose from non-disclosure of documents and the refusal or failure to call URA survey staff for cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the operative policy on SA was to be found in the LegCo/Finance Committee papers approved for funding and not in the Information Pamphlet; therefore no clear, unqualified representation in the Pamphlet gave rise to a legitimate expectation enforceable against the Director; failure to call URA survey staff went to weight of evidence rather than fatal procedural unfairness, although there is a general duty to disclose adverse materials relied upon by the decision-maker.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review applications dismissed
  • No relief granted to applicants