Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Comparables adjustments

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2016

CHEUNG LIN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHEUNG LIN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2015

The applicant was not assigned exclusive possession of the toilet cubicle (assignment plan and verbal description inconsistent and the verbal description prevailed); even if title existed no compensation is payable for the cubicle because access required unauthorised demolition of a common external wall in breach of the Buildings Ordinance, the Deed of Mutual Covenant and the Building Management Ordinance, and section 12(b)/(c) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance excludes value for unlawful or expectancy-based uses. The market value of the resumed Property as at 2 June 2012 is HK$36,780,000 (va…
16 May 2016

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/2015

The Court held that the legal fiction treating injurious affection as having accrued on the date of authorization does not compel treating the After valuation as if physical reclamation had already occurred for the purpose of assessing market expectations; expectations are factual matters to be assessed from public information at the valuation date and applied consistently to both valuations. The Tribunal erred in treating mid-stream open storage as a "godown" under Special Condition 3(a) (godown requires a warehouse/building) and in applying different uncertainty/risk factors to the Before a…
16 Jan 2015

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR23/1999

Leave to appeal was granted only where the grounds raised arguable points of law—principally interpretation and application of the CFA judgment and valuation methodology (hope value, enhancement value and effect of legal assumptions); grounds that attacked the Tribunal's factual assessments or constituted differences of opinion about valuation adjustments were dismissed as lacking reasonable prospects of success.
11 Jul 2011

DATA KEY LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

DATA KEY LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR6/2009

Where a property is physically sub-divided and is legally sub-divisible, the Lands Tribunal will value the property on that subdivided basis for resumption compensation; notional legal subdivision need not have been executed at the date of resumption. Using the Direct Comparison Method with agreed comparables and determined adjustments, the Tribunal fixed the open market value at HKD 6,715,000.
20 May 2011

KAISILK DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

KAISILK DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2005

Applying the residual method with the parties' agreed assumptions and the Tribunal's determinations on comparables adjustments, ground floor unit rate $264,349 psm, first floor unit rate at one-fifth of ground floor ($52,870 psm), discount rate 10.75%, and a 6-month allowance to obtain vacant possession, the open market value of the Subject Property at the date of resumption is determined to be HK$74,451,000.
5 Jan 2004

MATTHEW M KINGMAN v. GENTLE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

MATTHEW M KINGMAN v. GENTLE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT118/2003

The Tribunal granted the new tenancy for three years from 1 September 2003 and fixed the monthly rent at HK$47,000 exclusive of rates and management fee based on revisions to the comparable rents: excluded an unsuitable comparable (Comparable 4), accepted specific adjustments (time, floor level 0.5% per floor, garden area 345 sqm, car parking at HK$3,000 per space) and rejected speculative adjustments (internal condition, appliance adjustments); the Tribunal apportioned weight between the experts and used a combined approach to derive a unit rate of HK$136.4/m2 leading to the assessed rent of…
23 Sept 2003

LAM CHIK v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

Citation

LAM CHIK v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDHA3/2003

The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's valuation methodology subject to correcting inconsistent application of adjustments, adopted an average unit rate of $17,205 per sq.m and assessed the market value of the subject property at $609,000; the premium is to be calculated in accordance with paragraph 1(b) of the Schedule to the Housing Ordinance on that basis and costs are awarded to the Respondent.
24 Jan 2003

CHRISTOPHER JAMES FRAPE v. CHEER WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

CHRISTOPHER JAMES FRAPE v. CHEER WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT205/2002

Tribunal accepted the expert's methodology broadly but modified several adjustments (reduced location and accessibility adjustments, rejected age adjustment, reduced domestic appliances allowance to 3.5%, accepted 8% deduction where management fees included and allowed a 10% deduction for lack of lift on Comparable 4), excluded Comparable 2 as an outlier, calculated an average adjusted unit rate of $148.95 per sq.m and applied it to the subject saleable area of 176.2 sq.m to fix the monthly rent at $26,200 exclusive; granted the new tenancy for two years commencing 1 November 2002.
29 Aug 2001

CHARLES EDWARD WHITE v. MEMFUS WONG SURVEYORS LTD.

Citation

CHARLES EDWARD WHITE v. MEMFUS WONG SURVEYORS LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT192/2001

The Tribunal accepted the expert's use of Flats A and D comparables with standard adjustments, added a 3% adjustment for new lettings where appropriate, applied 0.5% per floor adjustment, corrected an error as to inclusion of management fee, and assessed the prevailing market rent at HK$60,200 per month exclusive of rates, Government rent and management fees for the new tenancy commencing 1.6.2001.
21 May 2001

Noble Resources Ltd. v. Golden Code Development Ltd.

Citation

Noble Resources Ltd. v. Golden Code Development Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT298/2000

The Tribunal declined to place weight on the respondent's untested surveyor's report and preferred the qualified valuer's evidence (Mr. Cullen) where it was supported by professional qualifications and testing; accordingly the market rent was fixed at $72,000 per month and a two-year tenancy was granted from 1.9.2000 to 31.8.2002.