Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex gratia payments

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2015

CHAN KAM CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

CHAN KAM CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV321/2001

The Lands Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award ex gratia payments because ex gratia allowances are administrative policy outside the statutory compensation regime established by the Railways Ordinance and Lands Resumption Ordinance; claims under s34 RO are limited to statutory compensation assessed according to the LRO, therefore the applicant's claim for ex gratia payment must be dismissed.
11 May 2012

WONG KAM WAH v. FISHERMEN CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KAM WAH v. FISHERMEN CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL96/2011

The Board's decision was quashed because it relied on irrelevant and arbitrary assumptions about fishermen's opportunity costs (two to four man-days at $28/hour) and thus acted unreasonably; the Board failed to address or state cogently the dependency-based rationale or an explicit policy justification for excluding Cheung Chau, rendering the decision irrational and procedurally unfair; matter remitted to the Board for reconsideration.
14 Sept 2000

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL391/2000

The applications are dismissed: valuation disputes and quantum of offers by the Corporation fall outside judicial review because the statutory compensation machinery governs valuation; the Secretary lawfully relied on the LDC Section and an independent government consultant (no breach of s.15(5)); reasons given met the legitimate expectation and procedural fairness requirements; there was no Wednesbury irrationality or procedural impropriety sufficient to quash the recommendation or resumption order.
14 Sept 2000

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL390/2000

Applications dismissed: valuation and quantum issues fall within statutory Lands Resumption/compensation machinery and are not generally amenable to judicial review; Secretary had sufficient evidence (including independent Government consultant and LDC Section input) to be satisfied under s.15(4)(c) and did not breach s.15(5); reasons were provided and adequate; no Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness warranting quashing of decisions.
14 Sept 2000

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL376/2000

The applications were dismissed because valuation disputes fall outside the ambit of judicial review, the Secretary had legitimate material (including an independent Government Consultant valuation) on which to be satisfied under s.15(4)(c), the involvement of the LDC Section did not contravene s.15(5), and the Secretary provided adequate reasons consistent with the prior promise; therefore no legal error, Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural impropriety was established to set aside the recommendation or resumption orders.
14 Sept 2000

LI TING CHUNG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI TING CHUNG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL901/2000

The applications were dismissed. The court held that valuation disputes and the quantum of offers fall within the statutory resumption and Lands Tribunal compensation scheme and are generally not amenable to judicial review; the Secretary had sufficient material including an independent government valuation and LDC Section input and did not breach s.15(5); the Secretary's reasons (and subsequent affidavits) were adequate to satisfy legitimate expectation; the Chief Executive in Council lawfully acted on the Secretary's recommendation; unauthorised structures do not attract compensation under…
11 Jan 1982

CHAN MOK YEE AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

CHAN MOK YEE AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6881/1980

The claim was dismissed because government policy to make ex gratia payments is not justiciable and does not create a legal obligation; plaintiffs failed to prove any equitable entitlement to remain on the land and the factual basis for their declarations; the Crown's notice under Crown Land Ordinance s.6(1) was valid and the Crown was entitled to mesne profits from 1 March 1981 to be assessed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN KAM CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

WONG KAM WAH v. FISHERMEN CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER

LI TING CHUNG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

CHAN MOK YEE AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL