FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); the Commissioner must consider all relevant evidence available when actually determining a valuation (including post‑projection actual rentals) and projections may be revised on appeal where they are materially erroneous; here the Commissioner's projection understated values by about 35% and was excessive, so the agreed higher valuations as at 1 April 1977 are adopted.

Citation
FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Parties
Appellant Owner: FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED; Respondent Commissioner: COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 November 1983
Case Number
LDRA33/1983
Procedural Posture
Rating Appeals / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeals upheld; rateable values amended in accordance with Tribunal determination
Legal Topics
Relevant Date for Valuation, Projection of Valuations, Admissibility of Post‑projection Evidence (bwllfa), Tone of the List, Classification Under Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance Part Ii/iv, Statutory Amendments Effect
Source Language
EN
Rating Law Valuation Property Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Relevant Date for Valuation Projection of Valuations Admissibility of Post‑projection Evidence (bwllfa) +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED

Appellant Owner

COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Respondent Commissioner

Procedural Posture

Rating Appeals / Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the relevant date for ascertaining rateable value where no date designated by Governor?
  2. 2 Whether a respondent's projection to the relevant date is reviewable on appeal using facts that became available after the projection was made?
  3. 3 Whether evidence after the projection date (including post‑relevant date rentals) is admissible (application of Bwllfa principle)?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); the Commissioner must consider all relevant evidence available when actually determining a valuation (including post‑projection actual rentals) and projections may be revised on appeal where they are materially erroneous; here the Commissioner's projection understated values by about 35% and was excessive, so the agreed higher valuations as at 1 April 1977 are adopted.

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld; rateable values amended in accordance with Tribunal determination

Orders

  • Rateable value of each tenement in Rating Appeals Nos. 43 and 73 of 1983 fixed at 67,200 HKD
  • Rateable value of each tenement in Rating Appeals Nos. 14 to 42 and 44 to 72 fixed at 66,000 HKD