Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Ding rights

  • 4 Mar 2025

    LEE KENG WAI AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING APPEAL BOARD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 582
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL393/2024

    The TPAB's Decision was irrational in public law terms because it failed to afford proper weight to and to consider relevant material factors (including prior planning permissions, the advanced stage of Lands Department processing, proximity to the V‑zone/VE and the applicants' efforts and expenditure), such that no reasonable TPAB could have reached the Decision; accordingly the Decision was quashed and mandamus was ordered directing the relevant board to grant the planning permissions on the facts of this case.

  • 13 Jan 2021

    KWOK CHEUK KIN AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 54
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV234/2019

    On proper construction of BL40 in its historical and constitutional context (including coherence with BL120/BL122 and Annex III and recognition in legislation and drafting materials), the Ding Rights (including free building licences, private treaty grants and exchanges as implemented under the Small House Policy) constituted lawful traditional rights and interests of New Territories indigenous inhabitants at the time the Basic Law was drafted and are therefore constitutionally protected by BL40; consequently the Small House Policy is constitutional in its entirety and the judicial review was…

  • 31 May 2019

    MA YIU MING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    [2019] HKLdT 38
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR9/2016

    The Tribunal refused the extension and leave to appeal because the applicants' delay was substantial and inexcusable, elevating the threshold to a real prospect of success which was not shown; on the merits the Tribunal held section 12(c) LRO precludes taking into account building licence potential (Small House/ding rights) at the resumption date absent an enforceable 'as of right' entitlement, so no reasonable prospect of success existed; however the Tribunal granted substitution of Cheung Cho Gau as executrix in LDLR 8/2016 and LDLR 10/2016 to validate proceedings and ordered costs to the r…

  • 31 May 2019

    WAN KWOK KEUNG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    [2019] HKLdT 38
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR4/2016

    The Tribunal refused the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal because the applicants' delay was inexcusable, triggering the higher threshold requiring a real prospect of success which was not shown; on the merits the Tribunal upheld that under section 12(c) LRO any prospect of obtaining building licences or NTEH development not actually granted as at the resumption date cannot be taken into account when assessing compensation, and that alleged ding rights/Small House Policy entitlements do not convert governmental approval into an enforceable 'as of right' exception to s12(c…

  • 31 May 2019

    JOIN EASE INVESTMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    [2019] HKLdT 38
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR11/2016

    The Tribunal refused extension of time and leave to appeal because the delay (36 days past deadline) was substantial and inexcusable, the applicants therefore had to show a real prospect of success and they failed to do so; materially, under section 12(c) LRO the tribunal correctly excluded any building or development potential based on prospective Small House Policy/ding rights because no building licences or enforceable rights existed as at the resumption date; substitution of the executrix was permitted for two matters to validate proceedings; costs were awarded to the respondent.

  • 31 May 2019

    CHUNG WAI KWONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    [2019] HKLdT 38
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR5/2016

    Applicants' delay was substantial and inexcusable; therefore they had to show a real prospect of success which they did not because the Tribunal correctly applied s12(c) LRO: absent a building licence granted as at the resumption date, no development potential (including NTEH/small house/ding rights) could be taken into account; accordingly leave to appeal out of time was refused. Substitution of the executrix was granted to validate proceedings. Costs awarded to respondent in the assessed sum of $67,040.

  • 31 May 2019

    CHENG KAM v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    [2019] HKLdT 38
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR12/2016

    Extension and leave to appeal were refused because the applicants' delay was substantial and inexcusable, triggering the higher threshold of demonstrating a real prospect of success, which they failed to do; prospects of obtaining building licences or relying on ding rights could not be treated as enforceable 'as of right' under section 12(c) LRO where no licence existed at the resumption date; substitution of the executrix was allowed for two deceased applicants to validate proceedings; costs ordered against applicants.

  • 16 May 2014

    WAH HING STRATEGY COMPANY LTD v. TANG OI MAN

    Citation
    WAH HING STRATEGY COMPANY LTD v. TANG OI MAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA16693/1999

    The Agreement and the Deed amounted to an illegal development scheme and are unenforceable; however, because the defendants did not pay the purchase consideration or construction costs and plaintiff advanced the purchase price and construction outlays, the court implies a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff so that the defendants hold the registered title as trustees; accordingly the power of attorney granted to Grand is void, the defendants are restrained from granting any P/A without the plaintiff's prior written consent, and the registration of the Deed of Development is to be vacat…