Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compensation on resumption

Legal area

Court

26 Apr 2018

陳銳珍對地政總署署長

Citation

[2018] HKCA 218
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP5/2018

Applicants failed to identify any arguable legal error in the Land Tribunal's application of the statutory compensation regime (Lands Resumption Ordinance ss10-12); the Land Development Corporation Ordinance had been repealed and could not support a special allowance; the Tribunal correctly followed binding authorities (Yin Shuen and Chan Kam Chuen); there was no reasonable prospect of success and no other reason to grant leave, so leave to appeal is refused.
10 Mar 2015

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN

Citation

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV146/2014

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to show that section 13 of the New Territories Ordinance applies to the compensation at issue; unlike Tang Che Tai the resumed lots were not imprinted with a Tong institution that would carry customary obligations into compensation, and the statutory definition of 'land' in the NTO does not include compensation or proceeds of sale, so Chinese custom could not be enforced against the compensation in this case.
3 Dec 1997

COMMON LUCK INVESTMENT LTD. v. CHEUNG SIU MING

Citation

COMMON LUCK INVESTMENT LTD. v. CHEUNG SIU MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1065/1994

The court found on balance that the Defendant executed the 1964 mortgage in statutory Form B, that the Bank had a power of sale and sold to the Plaintiff in 1977, but that the Defendant had been in exclusive adverse possession from 19 May 1965 so that under the Limitation Ordinance the Bank's and hence the Plaintiff's title was extinguished on 18 May 1985; accordingly the Defendant was the owner at resumption and entitled to compensation.
6 Jun 1997

HONG KONG CLAYS AND KAOLIN CO. LTD. v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

HONG KONG CLAYS AND KAOLIN CO. LTD. v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3718/1996

Section 24(2) of the Mining Ordinance confers a power on the Director to renew mining leases rather than imposing a mandatory duty to renew; however the Director must exercise that discretion lawfully and fairly, and in this case procedural unfairness arose because the Director failed to notify the lessee of adverse conclusions (non‑use and complaints) and invite representations; accordingly the Director's decision was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.
4 Aug 1971

RE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

RE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP104/1971

The Board exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding compensation for buildings erected in breach of the express covenants of the Crown lease because s.12(b) Cap.124 precludes compensation for use not in accordance with the lease; there was insufficient evidence to infer an implied licence, waiver or estoppel by the Crown (payment of rates/taxes and long user did not suffice), and the Board erred in law on the face of the record; consequently its determination (except as to costs) was quashed and the matter remitted for reassessment under the correct legal test.

Hong Kong Case Law

陳銳珍 對 地政總署署長

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN

COMMON LUCK INVESTMENT LTD. v. CHEUNG SIU MING

HONG KONG CLAYS AND KAOLIN CO. LTD. v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

RE ATTORNEY GENERAL

陳銳珍對地政總署署長