Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disturbance payment

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2011

LINGRADE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

LINGRADE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/2010

The Court allowed the appeal: the Lands Tribunal did not err in law in assessing disturbance compensation by using actual sale prices of comparable apartments adjusted by a market index to produce a hypothetical counterfactual; the statute compensates loss of money not merely loss of profit; hearsay schedules of finance charges were admissible under s.10(6) and the claimant was not required to call bank witnesses or produce primary bank documents absent challenge; the Court of Appeal was wrong to characterize the Tribunal's valuation as mere speculation.
26 Jun 2009

LINGRADE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

LINGRADE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV295/2008

The appeal was allowed because the Lands Tribunal's award in respect of Heads A and E was based on speculative valuation calculations unsupported by primary factual evidence that the respondent had and failed to produce; a claimant bears the burden to prove the quantum of disturbance damages assessed as in tort, and absent such proof the Tribunal should have required production of the respondent's scheme and financing documents or dismissed the claims; accordingly the Tribunal's award was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination in accordance with law.
3 Sept 2008

LINGRADE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

LINGRADE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRW2/2005

The Tribunal held that the TOA caused the agreed delay and that the Applicant incurred reasonable additional costs and losses as a consequence; accordingly the Applicant was entitled to disturbance payments for specified heads where causal link and reasonable quantum were proven. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's claim for the extra building covenant premium at the 14% penal rate, awarded specified sums for cable trench and fence works, and assessed loss of sales proceeds at HKD 10,200,000 after rejecting unsuitable comparables and determining a 24-month hypothetical sale period; extra fi…
15 Mar 2006

DISCREET LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

DISCREET LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR4/2005

Tribunal held compensation limited to losses caused by the temporary occupation as at the relevant dates: loss of rent assessed for the actual occupation period from 27 October 2001 to 6 July 2004 using an open market rent of HKD 262,000 p.a. discounted to present value (HKD 686,100); disturbance assessed by difference between Before and After open market values of the site at handover date (Before value HKD 107,645,120; After value HKD 101,339,810) giving HKD 6,305,310; additional agreed cost for outstanding section of Road R3 HKD 199,680; claims for earlier pre-creation loss and notional po…
20 Jan 2006

HONNEX DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

HONNEX DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR3/2004

Although applicants failed to prove mistake or reasonable cause for the delay, the Tribunal found no material prejudice to the Government and therefore extended time; on the facts the Tribunal held that the reduction in pavement width at the intersection adversely affected the applicants' private right of access and accordingly applicants are entitled to compensation to be assessed.
28 Feb 1997

TING KEY INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

TING KEY INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV160/1996

The appeal is allowed because the Lands Tribunal unfairly formed and relied upon grave suspicions (including suggested fabrication) without giving the appellants notice or opportunity to meet those suspicions, and because the Tribunal relied on the 14-day statutory exclusion without raising it or allowing the appellants to address it; consequently the Tribunal’s dismissal of the disturbance claims cannot stand and the matter is remitted to the Lands Tribunal for assessment of damages.
11 Jul 1996

TING KEY INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

TING KEY INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR61/1992

Applicants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a substantial disturbance subsisting for at least 14 consecutive days attributable to the NTCR road works and failed to isolate loss from competition and other factors; accordingly disturbance payment claims are dismissed; nominal mitigation expenses awarded.
7 Mar 1996

Ting Key Investment Ltd. and Another v. The Secretary for Transport

Citation

Ting Key Investment Ltd. and Another v. The Secretary for Transport
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR61/1992

No compensatable disturbance established: there was no implied right of access to the main trunk road and, in any event, compensation turns on interruption/interference with trade not property rights; Schedule para 4(2) requires substantial disturbance subsisting for at least 14 consecutive days and short spells cannot be aggregated; Applicants failed to prove any period of substantial disturbance of 14 days or more and failed to isolate loss caused by road works from loss caused by competition (Caltex) or other factors; accordingly disturbance payment claims dismissed and only mitigation exp…