WISDOM GAINING LTD v. WISDOM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS

WISDOM GAINING LTD v. WISDOM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS

The Tribunal did not err in law: it permissibly considered both pre- and post-application offers in assessing whether reasonable steps had been taken under s4(2)(b); the applicant's offers fell within a fair and reasonable range based on expert EUV/RDV evidence; there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no basis to grant interim stay; leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed with costs.

Citation
WISDOM GAINING LTD v. WISDOM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Wisdom Gaining Limited; 1st Respondent: Wisdom Light Industrial Limited; 2nd Respondent (discontinued): Hou Hin Limited; 3rd Respondent: CW Brothers Nominees Pty Limited
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 August 2014
Case Number
LDCS23000/2012
Procedural Posture
Land Compulsory Sale Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal (leave Refused)
Outcome
1st respondent's summons for leave to appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; interim stay of execution refused.
Legal Topics
Section 4(2)(b) Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, Leave to Appeal, Burden of Proof, Pre and Post Application Offers, Reasonable Steps to Acquire Undivided Shares, Interim Stay of Execution
Source Language
EN
Land Law Compulsory Sale Statutory Interpretation Appeal Law Valuation Section 4(2)(b) Land (compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance Leave to Appeal Burden of Proof +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wisdom Gaining Limited

Applicant

Wisdom Light Industrial Limited

1st Respondent

Hou Hin Limited

2nd Respondent (discontinued)

CW Brothers Nominees Pty Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Compulsory Sale Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tribunal erred in law by considering post-application offers when assessing s4(2)(b)
  2. 2 Whether applicant took reasonable steps to acquire all undivided shares under s4(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof was improperly shifted to respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law: it permissibly considered both pre- and post-application offers in assessing whether reasonable steps had been taken under s4(2)(b); the applicant's offers fell within a fair and reasonable range based on expert EUV/RDV evidence; there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no basis to grant interim stay; leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

1st respondent's summons for leave to appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; interim stay of execution refused.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with costs to the applicant to be taxed on the District Court scale if not agreed
  • Certificate for counsel in favour of the applicant