Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Eligibility for compensation

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 1999

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV340/1998

The 1961 communications did not create proprietary rights or an irrevocable licence; residents held revocable occupation permits under the Resettlement Ordinance which could be validly terminated by notices to quit; no unconscionable conduct or estoppel arose to bar revocation; consequently no entitlement to damages in the judicial review proceedings and the appeals fail.
6 Nov 1998

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority

Citation

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/1998

Applicant's claim was dismissed because documentary evidence and a sworn statement contradicted his claim of continuous residence; eligibility requires continuous residence from June 1961 to April 1995 as principal home, which was not proven.
4 Nov 1998

632 Claimants v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

632 Claimants v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/1998

The applicant was not awarded compensation because she failed to prove continuous residence at Rennie's Mill from June 1961 to April 1995 as her principal home; documentary evidence indicated she had moved out and the judge rejected her testimony on credibility grounds, therefore she is ineligible.
9 Oct 1998

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority

Citation

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/1998

The judge applied the established legal test from the main judgment (1996): a claimant must have been residing in Rennie’s Mill in June 1961 and continued to live there until April 1995 as their principal home; on the facts the applicant Mr Ong Heng Long failed to meet that test and his application is dismissed.
25 Sept 1998

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority

Citation

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/1998

The applicant failed to prove the essential factual requirement of continuous residence at Rennies Mill from June 1961 to April 1995 as his principal home; therefore his application for compensation is dismissed.
21 Sept 1998

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority

Citation

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/1998

The applicant was dismissed because he failed on the facts to prove the residency and principal home requirements set out in the 1996 main judgment and therefore was not eligible for compensation.
17 Sept 1998

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority

Citation

632 Claimants v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/1998

The applicant failed to prove the required continuous residence in Rennie’s Mill from June 1961 to April 1995 as his principal home, which is the statutory/established test for eligibility, and therefore his application for compensation is dismissed.
19 Mar 1998

RE WONG PEI CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

RE WONG PEI CHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP965/1996

Eligibility requires proof of ordinary residence in Rennie’s Mill in June 1961 and continued ordinary residence to at least 4 April 1995; damages for loss of opportunity are to be calculated using the structure area multiplied by a notional monthly rental (adopted at HK$61 per sq m) multiplied by a capitalisation factor derived from a 7% yield and life‑expectancy, with structure area preferred over permit area; interest to run from date of departure at a fair rate (10%).