Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Classification under landlord and tenant 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

LDRA70/1983

The Tribunal held that the proper date for ascertaining rateable value 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; therefore a projection made earlier may be reviewed and altered on appeal if it is materially erroneous; the tone of the list does not justify preserving an excessive error; accordingly the Commissioner's projected valuations were excessive and the Tribunal fixed higher rateable values as agreed by the valuers.
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

LDRA35/1983

The relevant date for ascertaining rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977). Evidence of actual rents and market facts that became known after a valuer's earlier projection is admissible and must be used; a Commissioner's projection may be altered on appeal if it is shown to be materially erroneous or excessive despite being reasonable at the time. The tone of the list cannot justify retaining an excessive error. Applying these principles, the Tribunal increased the rateable values to the agreed hindsight 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

LDRA32/1983

The relevant valuation date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); actual rental evidence available after a projection is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred in refusing to consider post‑projection rentals and projections may be altered on appeal where the projection is materially erroneous; accordingly the Tribunal increased the rateable values to the agreed hindsight 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

LDRA52/1983

The relevant valuation date 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 hindsight evidence; a projection, even if reasonable when made, is reviewable and may be altered on appeal if the projection is materially erroneous; the tone of the list does not trump corrective accuracy.
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

LDRA63/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant valuation date is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rental movements available after a prior projection is admissible (Bwllfa principle) and a projection competent when made is not immune from alteration if hindsight shows it to be materially wrong; the Commissioner erred in 1982 by failing to take into account known rentals after the projection period and by making an excessively conservative projection, so the agreed hindsight valuations are adopted and the appeals are upheld with rateable values increased accordi…
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

LDRA43/1983

The relevant valuation 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 under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred in 1982 by refusing to use known post-projection rentals. Projections may be reviewed and altered on appeal where the projection is materially erroneous; preservation of the tone of the list does not bar correction of excessive errors. On the facts the Commissioner's projections were excessively low and the tribunal fixed new rateable values 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

LDRA40/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant valuation date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals both before and after that date is admissible (Bwllfa principle) to determine the correct value as at that date; a Commissioner's earlier projection may be set aside on appeal where hindsight evidence shows the projection was materially excessive; on the facts the Commissioner's projection was excessively low and the agreed higher 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

LDRA16/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant valuation 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 under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred in 1982 by refusing to consider known rental movements when making a notional projection to 1 April 1977; projections are subject to review and must be corrected on appeal where errors are excessive; here the Commissioner's projection understated values by about 35% and the agreed hindsight values are adopted.