Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Marine rights

Legal area

Court

27 Dec 2017

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2017

The Court found no basis to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; it made the order nisi absolute for the substantive CFA appeals, directed PBIC to pay the Director’s costs of the appeals and of the applications for leave before the Appeal Committee, and ordered PBIC to pay 50% of the Director’s costs in the Court of Appeal (including specified ancillary matters) and the costs of written submissions on costs.
16 Oct 2017

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2017

The Court held that 'godown purposes' in the grant denotes uses involving a building (therefore excluding mid‑stream open storage as a natural meaning) and that for the after valuation the correct assumption is that, as at the authorisation date, the reclamation was to be treated as certain to occur so valuation must reflect the market view on that basis (approach b).
16 Oct 2017

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV2/2017

The court held that 'godown purposes' in the grant does not extend to mid‑stream/open storage (a godown implies a building) and that for the after valuation the correct hypothesis allows assuming the reclamation was certain to proceed (the after valuation may assume the cause of loss was bound to occur); PBIC's appeal dismissed and Director's appeal allowed.
16 Oct 2017

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2017

The Court held that 'godown purposes' in the Grant requires use for a godown (a building) and does not include open mid‑stream storage; and that for the after valuation the correct approach is to assume that, as at the authorisation date, the reclamation (the cause of the loss of marine rights) should be regarded as certain, permitting the after valuation to reflect the market consequences (eg certainty of the CT Scheme and adjusted delay/risk) of that assumption.
16 Oct 2017

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/2017

The natural meaning of 'godown purposes' in the Grant denotes storage in a godown (ie a building), so 'godown purposes' does not include mid-stream/open storage; and for the after valuation the appropriate hypothesis is to assume that the cause of the loss (the authorised reclamation) was treated as certain to proceed on the valuation date, such that the after valuation may take the market consequences of that assumed reclamation into account (approach b), consistent with the Court of Final Appeal's prior guidance.
16 Oct 2017

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2017

The Court held that 'godown purposes' in the Grant does not extend to open land mid-stream storage (so PBIC's appeal on construction fails) and that for the after valuation the correct approach is to assume, for valuation purposes, that the reclamation which caused loss of marine rights was to be treated as certain to occur (so the Director's appeal on valuation assumption succeeds).
16 Oct 2017

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/2017

The court held that 'godown purposes' in the grant does not extend to open mid-stream storage (a godown implies a building); and for the after valuation under s12 the correct approach is to assume at the valuation date that the reclamation (the cause of loss of marine rights) was certain to proceed, so the Tribunal was entitled to make the after valuation on that basis (approach b).
15 Nov 2016

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/2015

The Court declined to convert the judgment into broad declarations and instead set aside the Tribunal's award and remitted the matter to the Lands Tribunal to determine compensation in accordance with this Court's judgment; the Court held that Before and After values must be assessed by reference to the same valuation date and prevailing market expectations and that no differentiation should be made between those values in respect of deferment period and risk adjustments as a matter of law; Scenario 3 was rejected as speculative and unsupported by evidence; costs of the appeals were ordered t…
15 Nov 2016

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2015

The Court held there should be no differentiation between the 'Before Value' and 'After Value' in respect of deferment period and uncertainty/risk — both values must be assessed by reference to the same prevailing market expectations; the Lands Tribunal's award is set aside and the case remitted to the Tribunal to determine compensation in accordance with this Court's judgment; declarations were unnecessary; costs of the appeals ordered that each party bear their own costs; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused for both parties.
16 May 2016

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2015

Court held the CFA principle stands but clarified that (1) the legal fiction of deemed reclamation does not change the market expectations to be applied — the same public knowledge and uncertainty must inform both valuations; (2) the Tribunal erred by applying a different uncertainty/risk factor and deferment for the After Value and must adjust the Before Value for the Cheoy Lee sub-tenancy and agreed demolition errors; (3) mid-stream open storage is not a 'godown' under the grant and questions as to 'general industrial' use and final quantum/remittal are to be referred back for determination…