Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disturbance compensation

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2010

HAPPY DRAGON RESTAURANT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

HAPPY DRAGON RESTAURANT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV201/2009

The Tribunal erred as a matter of law and fact in rejecting the disturbance claim and in finding the applicant had the financial means and opportunity to relocate; disturbance losses for actual loss of fittings and non‑transferable licences are compensable notwithstanding non‑relocation; on the evidence a 10% per annum depreciation rate applied to fittings; on the evidence the Tribunal's conclusions that bridging finance or additional provisional compensation would have been available were unsupported and thus the extinguishment claim cannot be rejected on that basis—liability for extinguishm…
28 Feb 2003

TANG PING CHOI v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

TANG PING CHOI v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR38/2000

The Tribunal upheld its original factual and valuation findings after review: the plants were not shown to be superior Dutch hybrids warranting higher prices; only two harvests were recoverable given the agreed unexpired lease terms including notice period; the Applicants were bound by expert reports incorporated in their pleadings; Mr. Hong's estimates of quantities, prices and areas were preferred to Mr. So's disputed assumptions; adjustments were made to harvesting cost items yielding a revised total compensation of HKD 268,434, and the Applicants were ordered to bear 8/10 of the Responden…
4 Dec 2001

NG YUEN KANG t/a WING LEE METAL CO v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

NG YUEN KANG t/a WING LEE METAL CO v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR27/2000

Tribunal held that disturbance claims under the Railways Ordinance are to be assessed under LRO s10(2)(d); it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an unpleaded post-resumption loss of profit claim; using selected comparables (C1 and C2), an adopted unit market rent of $15.82 per sq.m. per month, a capitalization yield of 15% and a multiplier reflecting 1.5 months removal period produced profit rent $10,166 and reinstatement costs $22,300, with no compensation for partial extinguishment of goodwill, yielding a total award of $32,466.
7 Sept 2001

Fung Tin Sang t/a Dragon Trading Co. v. The Secretary For Transport

Citation

Fung Tin Sang t/a Dragon Trading Co. v. The Secretary For Transport
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR30/2000

The Tribunal held the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving he had taken reasonable steps to find suitable alternative premises, found key witnesses not credible and found evidence of a successor/trading business; therefore compensation on a total extinguishment basis was denied and any compensation is to be assessed on the basis of relocation of the business.
22 Feb 2001

Leung Kee Investment Co. Ltd. v. Secretary for Transport

Citation

Leung Kee Investment Co. Ltd. v. Secretary for Transport
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR27/1999

Tribunal preferred the respondent expert's consistent valuation method, derived an average unadjusted base unit rate of $26,637 per sq.m., applied net adjustments totalling +9% producing $29,000 per sq.m. (rounded), valued balcony at 1/4 and roof at 1/8 of that rate, and adopted the pragmatic convention that garden ancillary value equals one‑tenth of the main house rate; consequently awarded the specified resumed‑lot values. Tribunal held that only certain moving/acquisition expenses were recoverable under s10(2)(e)(i) (legal fees, agency commission, removal costs and specified disbursements)…
14 Jan 2000

Dr. Lui Tat Hung v. The Director of Lands

Citation

Dr. Lui Tat Hung v. The Director of Lands
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/1998

The Tribunal adjusted the unaudited accounts (disallowing inflated management fees and certain depreciation, and removing double rent already compensated), selected 1995/96 as the base year (rejecting 1993/94 as aberrant), applied adjusted growth rates (15% for 1995/96→1996/97, then 10% and 5% for subsequent years reflecting economic conditions), calculated compensatable losses for the identified years (pre-resumption 1996/97 and post-resumption to March 1999), held losses beyond March 1999 barred by s.12(c), and awarded total compensation of HKD 2,800,000 with leave reserved for interest and…
14 Jan 2000

Dr. Lui Tat Hung v. The Director of Lands

Citation

Dr. Lui Tat Hung v. The Director of Lands
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/1998

The Tribunal confirmed that s.12(c) restricts compensation in respect of locational/site goodwill to the residue or relevant expectancy of the lease but does not apply to personal/floating goodwill; the Applicant had both locational and personal goodwill, and personal goodwill had effectively been recouped or compensated for the period 1/4/1997–31/3/1999 already awarded by the Tribunal, so s.12(c) precluded additional awards for 1999/2000 or permanent loss; accordingly the review was dismissed and the original award upheld.
30 Jan 1984

CHEUNG TAI HEE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHEUNG TAI HEE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR6/1983

Applicants entitled to compensation under the Ordinance for (a) the value of the extinguished leasehold interest (profit rent difference capitalised over the 3-year residue) and (b) full disturbance compensation without discount for a 3-year residue; profit rent assessed at $2,000 p.a. for Kwok Muk and $2,500 p.a. for Chow Kun-lo capitalised at 13% for 3 years producing $4,750 and $6,000 respectively; reasonable reconstruction unit rate fixed at $12 per sqm yielding disturbance awards of $54,000 (Kwok) and $63,000 (Chow) with $1,000 allowed each for loss of production; totals awarded $58,750…
30 Jan 1984

CHEUNG TAI HEE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHEUNG TAI HEE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR2/1983

Applicants were entitled to compensation under s.10(2)(a) for the value of their extinguished leasehold interests and under s.10(2)(d) for disturbance. Unexpired residue of their tenancies at resumption was found to be three years. Profit rent was conservatively assessed at HK$2,000 p.a. (Kwok Muk) and HK$2,500 p.a. (Chow Kun‑lo) and capitalised at 13% yielding leasehold values of approximately HK$4,750 and HK$6,000 respectively. Disturbance for relocation and reconstruction of ponds was assessed at HK$12 per square metre producing disturbance awards of HK$54,000 (Kwok Muk) and HK$63,000 (Cho…
30 Jan 1984

CHEUNG TAI HEE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHEUNG TAI HEE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR3/1983

Tribunal held applicants were entitled to compensation under s.10(2)(a) for the value of their extinguished leasehold interests and under s.10(2)(d) for disturbance; found unexpired residue of leases to be three years; determined profit rent differentials of $2,000 p.a. (Kwok Muk) and $2,500 p.a. (Chow Kun-lo) discounted at 13% producing leasehold values of $4,750 and $6,000 respectively; determined reasonable disturbance replacement cost at $12 per square metre giving disturbance awards of $54,000 and $63,000 plus $1,000 each for loss of production; awarded totals of $58,750 to Kwok Muk and…