Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Comparative valuation

  • 31 Dec 2024

    HANTEC INVESTMENT LTD v. LAM KAN YAU

    Citation
    [2024] HKLdT 105
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE393/2022

    On an objective assessment of conduct, documents and communications, the Tribunal found an outward consensus that Mr Lam held himself out as the contracting party during the Material Period and thus occupied the Subject Lots as tenant at will; his personal signatures on the Demolition Plan and Draft License Agreement, demand letters addressed to him, and Hantec’s negotiation stance justified imputing a tenancy at will; the tenancy at will was validly terminated by notices dated 27 May 2021 and 21 June 2021; mesne profits were assessed by adopting market reality valuation methodology and compa…

  • 8 Dec 2014

    TAI PING RESTAURANT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    TAI PING RESTAURANT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR1/2013

    The Tribunal accepted that market value at the date of resumption (3 November 2012) governs compensation and, after evaluating comparables and expert evidence, selected A6, R4 and R5 as relevant comparables, applied specific agreed and tribunal-preferred adjustment rates (including time, headroom, location adjustments of -5% to A6, -10% to R4, +15% to R5; size adjustment 1% per 4m; frontage 2% per metre full frontage; second frontage 5%; depth 1% per 1.5m), rejected depth-to-frontage ratio adjustment, computed an adjusted average unit rate and assessed the ground floor at $60,142,252; adding…

  • 18 Apr 2007

    LEE SHEH CHUNG v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    LEE SHEH CHUNG v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR4/2004

    The Tribunal adopted comparables AC2, AC3 and RC1, used the Rating & Valuation Department time indices, applied specific adjustments (time, location, headroom, size, frontage, layout, age) yielding an adjusted unit rate of HKD 51,793/m2 and OMVs on vacant possession of HKD 2,874,000 (A1), HKD 2,874,000 (A2) and HKD 2,867,000 (A3); for A4 the Tribunal valued the term interest (6 months at 9%) and the reversion (present value at 10%) using an estimated market rent to reach HKD 2,822,000, and ordered payment of those sums.

  • 18 Jan 2005

    HACKWOOD SERVICE CO (HK) LTD v. WILHELMINA CHI YING WU

    Citation
    HACKWOOD SERVICE CO (HK) LTD v. WILHELMINA CHI YING WU
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT135/2004

    The Tribunal determined the PMR by applying adjusted unit rates derived from seven comparables to the effective area (207.2 sq.m.) to reach a pre‑deduction PMR of $59,800 per month, then allowed deductions for the amortised monthly cost of necessary repairs ($7,645) and the monthly equivalent of 27 days' rent‑free ($2,212) because the lease's repairing covenant did not obligate the landlord to carry out structural repairs and a hypothetical well‑informed tenant would factor in the cost and disturbance of repairs amortised over the 24‑month renewal term; resulting PMR was rounded to $50,000 pe…

  • 15 May 1995

    WONG YIK PO and Others v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    WONG YIK PO and Others v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR16/1994

    The Tribunal gave primary weight to the comparative method but, because some comparables were resumption settlements, also incorporated residual analysis; it adjusted the primary comparables (arriving at an AV of $22,000/m2 and comparative site value rounded to $34,340,000), reconciled with a residual-derived open market land estimate (~$33.5M) and after applying appropriate discounting for statutory notice (6 months) and capitalisation of term income determined the compensation payable at $33,000,000. The Tribunal also set mandatory standards for Rule 20 reports (metric units, explicit metho…

  • 6 Apr 1991

    MCKINSEY & CO INC HONG KONG AND OTHERS v. SKY ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD

    Citation
    MCKINSEY & CO INC HONG KONG AND OTHERS v. SKY ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLA3598/1991

    The Tribunal held that damp penetration common to all three houses did not justify a special allowance for House A3 because defects were similar across the properties and repairs were practicable and being undertaken; prevailing market rents were therefore set based on reliable comparables (notably House A5) and market evidence, and a break clause was included for House A3 (3 months' notice after 12 months) under the Tribunal's discretion to consider all relevant circumstances.