Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of hindsight evidence (bwllfa principle)

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 1983

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

Citation

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

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA58/1983

The relevant date for ascertaining the rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals and other facts available after a valuer's projection is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; a projection competently made may nevertheless be revised on appeal if hindsight evidence shows the projection was materially erroneous; the Commissioner's refusal to use post-projection rental evidence was an error of law and the appeals succeed, fixing the rateable values at $67,200 for the two 31st-floor tenements and $66,000 for the other 58 tenements.
5 Nov 1983

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

Citation

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

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA34/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible under the Bwllfa principle and K Shoe Shops; the Commissioner erred in 1982 by refusing to consider post-projection rental evidence and by making an excessively conservative projection; the projection error (about 35%) was excessive and required correction; therefore the appeals succeed and the agreed hindsight valuations as at 1 April 1977 are adopted (2 tenements at $67,200 and 58 tenements at $66,000) and the Valuat…
5 Nov 1983

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

Citation

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

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA41/1983

Held that the correct relevant date is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); the Commissioner erred as a matter of law in refusing to take into account actual rental evidence after the date of projection because hindsight evidence is admissible to correct erroneous projections; projections may be upheld only if not excessive; on the evidence the Commissioner's projection was excessively low and the Tribunal fixed rateable values at agreed hindsight figures (31st-floor units $67,200 each; other units $66,000 each) and ordered amendment of the Valuation List effective 1…
5 Nov 1983

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

Citation

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

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA54/1983

The relevant valuation date is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977). Hindsight evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred in 1982 by refusing to take such evidence into account. Projections are reviewable on appeal and must be corrected where errors are excessive. On the evidence (including hindsight rentals) the Tribunal upheld the appeals and fixed rateable values at HKD 67,200 for two 31st-floor tenements and HKD 66,000 for the remaining 58 tenements, directing amendment of the V…
5 Nov 1983

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

Citation

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

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA27/1983

The relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977). The Commissioner, when valuing after that date, must ascertain rateable value as at that date using all relevant evidence available at the time the physical valuation is carried out (including hindsight evidence of actual rentals during the projected period). A projection is reviewable on appeal and must be altered where the projection is materially/excessively wrong; the 'tone of the list' does not justify retaining clearly incorrect valuations.
5 Nov 1983

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

Citation

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

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA31/1983

The Tribunal holds the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); hindsight evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible and should have been used by the Commissioner; where a projection proves materially erroneous it may be corrected on proposal or appeal notwithstanding concerns about the tone of the list; on the evidence the Commissioner's projection was excessively conservative and the agreed actual values as at 1 April 1977 must be adopted.
5 Nov 1983

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

Citation

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

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA18/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date was 1 April 1977; the Bwllfa principle applies to rating valuations so actual rental evidence after a projection is admissible; the Commissioner erred as a matter of law by refusing to consider post-projection rental evidence when valuing in 1982; the projection was materially erroneous (about 35% low) and therefore the tribunal corrected the rateable values to the agreed hindsight figures (HKD 67,200 for two 31st-floor tenements and HKD 66,000 for the other 58 tenements) and ordered amendment of the Valuation List effective 1 April 1983.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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