15 Feb 2016
Leave granted for the single joint expert to determine whether there is any residual plot ratio on Subsection 15 and, if so, its magnitude; leave refused for the GFA issue as irrelevant; costs ordered nisi that costs be in the cause.
22 Nov 2012
An extant s42 permit that modifies site coverage/plot ratio takes effect on issue and binds the Building Authority when assessing subsequent building submissions; the BA cannot lawfully ignore that permit without first revoking it. Because the Permit here remained extant and its conditions were subsequent, the BA's disapproval based on ignoring the Permit was legally erroneous and the BAT correctly directed approval of the Superstructure Plans.
22 Jun 1983
Premises are post-war and Part II applies; the redevelopment scheme is conducive to public interest, the Building Authority has approved the building plan, and the applicant has sufficient financial means; accordingly the Tribunal grants repossession under s53(2)(c) subject to specified conditions including plans, timelines, minimum building expenditure, restrictions on disposal until completion and issuance of Occupation Permit, and payment of compensation to tenants.
22 Jun 1983
The Tribunal found the buildings are post‑war and within Part II, the redevelopment scheme (with Building Authority approved plans) is in the public interest, and the applicant has genuine intention and sufficient financial means; accordingly repossession was ordered under s.53(2)(c) subject to specified conditions (plans lodged, commencement and completion timelines, minimum building cost, restrictions on assignment/solicitation until Occupation Permit issued, and compensation arrangements for tenants).
22 Jun 1983
Repossession granted because the premises were within Part II, the applicant demonstrated a genuine intention to redevelop, had approved plans and sufficient funding and the redevelopment was in the public interest under s53A(1); repossession is conditional on specified safeguards including approved plans, commencement and completion timelines, minimum building expenditure, restriction on disposal until occupation permit, and payment of compensation to tenants.
22 Jun 1983
The Tribunal granted repossession because the premises are post-war buildings subject to Part II, the redevelopment scheme (approved by the Building Authority) demonstrably increases floor area and units and is conducive to the public interest under s53A(1), and the applicant has a genuine intention and sufficient funds to carry out the redevelopment; repossession is ordered subject to specified conditions ensuring completion, minimum building expenditure and protection of tenants via compensation.
22 Jun 1983
The Tribunal found the premises are regulated under Part II, the redevelopment scheme is approved by the Building Authority and is conducive to public interest, and the applicant has genuine intention and sufficient funds (including shareholder advances and a HK$10,000,000 bank loan); accordingly repossession under s.53(2)(c) is granted subject to specified protective and performance conditions and payment of compensation to tenants.
22 Jun 1983
The Tribunal granted repossession under s.53(2)(c) because the redevelopment scheme had Building Authority approval, was found conducive to public interest under s.53A(1), and the applicant demonstrated genuine intention and sufficient funds; repossession was ordered subject to specific conditions protecting tenants and ensuring completion and expenditure requirements.
22 Jun 1983
The Tribunal found the premises are post‑war buildings within Part II, approved redevelopment plans are conducive to public interest, and the applicant demonstrated genuine intention and sufficient funding (shareholder advances and bank loan); therefore repossession under s.53(2)(c) is justified and an order for possession is granted subject to conditions safeguarding completion, minimum building expenditure, restrictions on disposal until an Occupation Permit is issued, and provision for tenant compensation.
22 Jun 1983
The Tribunal found the premises fell within Part II, the applicant demonstrated a genuine intention to redevelop, had Building Authority approval and sufficient funds (including shareholder advances and bank loan) and the scheme was conducive to public interest; accordingly repossession was ordered subject to specified conditions including lodging plans, commencement and completion deadlines, minimum building expenditure, restrictions on disposition until completion and payment of compensation to tenants.