Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Classification under landlord and tenant (consolidation) ordinance

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

LDRA56/1983

The Tribunal held (1) the correct date for ascertaining rateable value where no date is designated is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); (2) evidence of actual market movements after a valuer's projection is admissible under the Bwllfa principle and a projection, even if reasonable when made, is reviewable and correctable on appeal where the projection proved to be materially erroneous; (3) the Commissioner erred in law by disregarding post-projection rentals and his projection errors were excessive, therefore the agreed hindsight valuations are 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

LDRA37/1983

The Valuation List relevant date is the date it comes into effect (1 April 1977); where a valuation was projected to that date, the projection is reviewable on appeal and the tribunal may admit and prefer actual rental evidence from during and after the projection period (Bwllfa principle); the tone of the list does not override correcting material errors; therefore the Commissioner's failure to use available post‑projection rental evidence was an error of law and the valuations were adjusted accordingly.
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

LDRA73/1983

The relevant valuation date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); where the Commissioner projects valuations from an earlier date, the tribunal may consider hindsight evidence of actual rentals and alter the projection if the projection is materially erroneous; the Commissioner's failure to take into account post-projection rental evidence was a legal error and the appeals succeed with rateable values fixed at the agreed April 1, 1977 figures.
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

LDRA45/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date for valuation is the date 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; a projection reasonably made at the time is nonetheless reviewable on appeal and must be corrected where the projection is materially erroneous; on the facts the Commissioner erred in refusing to have regard to post‑projection rental evidence and his projection was excessive, so the rateable values were adjusted accordingly.
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

LDRA42/1983

The valuation date is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of rents and comparables available after an earlier projection is admissible under the Bwllfa principle and a projection may be altered on appeal if it is materially erroneous; the tone of the list cannot justify preserving clearly excessive errors; accordingly the Commissioner's conservative projection was legally erroneous and the Tribunal must fix correct rateable values as at 1 April 1977 using all relevant evidence.
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

LDRA46/1983

The Tribunal held (1) the relevant date for ascertaining rateable value where no date is designated is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); (2) evidence of actual rentals and other facts during and after the projection period is admissible to assess value at that date (Bwllfa principle applies to rating valuations); (3) a projection that is materially erroneous may be corrected on proposal or appeal even if it was reasonable when made — preservation of the tone of the list does not override correcting substantial inaccuracies; (4) on the facts the Commissioner's proje…
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

LDRA21/1983

The Tribunal held the proper date for ascertaining rateable value is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977). The Commissioner must consider all relevant evidence available when determining the value as at that date, including evidence which post‑dates the projection (Bwllfa principle). A projection competent at the time may nevertheless be altered on appeal if it is materially or excessively wrong; the tone of the list cannot override correctness.

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