DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Leave to appeal was granted only on two discrete questions: (1) PBIL's question on the meaning and scope of 'permitted user' for 'godown purposes' (whether it requires a building); and (2) the Director's question whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the different factual assumptions directed for before and after valuations could not as a matter of law lead to differences in value. All other questions failed the test for leave and were refused, with the Appeal Committee adopting the Court of Appeal's reasoning for those refusals.

Citation
DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD
Parties
Applicant (famv 57/2016): PENNYS BAY INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED; Respondent (applicant in FAMV 58 65/2016): DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 April 2017
Case Number
FAMV63/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal — Determination by Appeal Committee
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted in part: two questions granted leave; leave refused for all other questions.
Legal Topics
Permitted User, Godown Use, Before and After Valuation, Compensation Assessment, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Property Law Compulsory Acquisition/compensation Administrative Law Appeal Procedure Land Valuation Permitted User Godown Use Before and After Valuation +2 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENNYS BAY INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

Applicant (famv 57/2016)

DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Respondent (applicant in FAMV 58 65/2016)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal — Determination by Appeal Committee

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning and scope of a permitted user of land for 'godown purposes' and whether such use must involve a building; whether factual assumptions directed for before and after valuations could as a matter of law lead to differences in value; whether proposed questions met the test for leave (involvement, general/public importance, reasonable arguability)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted only on two discrete questions: (1) PBIL's question on the meaning and scope of 'permitted user' for 'godown purposes' (whether it requires a building); and (2) the Director's question whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the different factual assumptions directed for before and after valuations could not as a matter of law lead to differences in value. All other questions failed the test for leave and were refused, with the Appeal Committee adopting the Court of Appeal's reasoning for those refusals.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted in part: two questions granted leave; leave refused for all other questions.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted to Penny's Bay Investment Company Limited on the question concerning the meaning and scope of a permitted user of land for 'godown purposes' (whether such use must involve a building).
  • Leave to appeal granted to the Director of Lands on the question whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the directed different factual assumptions for before and after valuations could not as a matter of law lead to differences in value.