Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pointe gourde principle

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2023

YIELD-THE-BEST LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 75
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR1/2021

The Tribunal correctly construed Paragraph 5 as an additional discretionary mechanism to reduce compensation after compensation has been assessed pursuant to the LRO; it therefore did not override s.12(b). The Tribunal lawfully applied s.12(b) to disregard enhancement from unlawful temporary structures and properly excluded post-notification tenancy evidence under the Pointe Gourde principle. Leave to appeal is granted only on Grounds 1 and 2 under s.11AA(6)(b) because the statutory interaction warrants appellate clarification; all other grounds lack reasonable prospects and are dismissed.
20 Feb 2023

ALLIANCE DEVELOP LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 12
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2020

Tribunal applied the statutory market value test under s12(d), rejected adoption of alternative valuation definitions, analysed and selected appropriate comparables, applied multiplicative adjustments for time, location, frontage, headroom and layout, excluded unsuitable comparables, derived an adjusted unit rate and assessed the market value of the Property at $12,000,000 as at 6 December 2019.
23 Sept 2021

FOOK LEE HOLDINGS LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 67
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR2/2016

Although an open market rent for the TOA was assessed, the Government relocated carparking within the same Lot to an area capable of accommodating equal or greater parking (29 spaces versus original 20) and thereby avoided the claimant's loss; Item 13 bars compensation for loss not suffered; the claimant failed to adduce evidence of prior beneficial use or necessary approvals to override lease restrictions; on these legal and factual bases there was no compensatable loss and leave to appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.
26 Jul 2021

KINSTAR DEVELOMENT LTD v. TSE YIU KUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 54
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS10000/2019

Tribunal held applicant met the statutory ownership threshold (reduced to 80% under the 2010 Notice), redevelopment of the buildings was justified by their age and state of repair, the applicant had taken reasonable steps to acquire outstanding interests, the Tribunal accepted the valuation approach and many adjustments of the applicant's expert (Ms Chow) and determined total EUV at HKD165,059,000 and land/RDV based reserve at HKD267,000,000 (rounded to HKD270,000,000), and ordered sale by public auction with appointed trustees and specified procedural conditions; indemnity costs were not awa…
21 May 2021

FOOK LEE HOLDINGS LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 36
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR2/2016

The Tribunal concluded that Item 13 of Part I of the Schedule to the Ordinance bars compensation because the applicant suffered no loss from relocation of the ancillary car parking within the same lot; accordingly nil compensation is payable for the temporary occupation of the TOA during the Relevant Period. The Tribunal nonetheless assessed that, if Item 13 did not apply, the open market rent payable for the TOA during the Relevant Period would be HK$4,935,840 (capitalised assessment as at 26 February 2014).
5 Nov 2020

TSE CHAN FAI AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 50
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR10/2018

The Tribunal adopted the direct comparison method, excluded an outlier comparable (C5), accepted the tribunal adjustments framework (adopting 1% per 4 sqm size adjustment and 2% per metre frontage adjustment as appropriate), derived an average adjusted unit price of $438,383 per sq m producing a 100% vacant possession value of $30,125,680; the Tribunal refused to rely on rent passing attributable to the scheme (Pointe Gourde) for enhancing value, accepted a 10% discount for valuation of a partial (2/3) interest for lack of marketability, and applied those principles to determine compensation…
11 Jan 2016

YUK FONG INVESTMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

YUK FONG INVESTMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2014

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's comparable analysis and adjustments, rejected outlier comparable R3, accepted a unit value of $236,000/sq m on vacant possession as at 2 June 2012, deducted reinstatement cost $30,180 and, because the tenancy was entered under threat of resumption and contained a clause allowing termination on resumption, disregarded the tenancy effect and awarded compensation of $46,700,000 under s10(2)(a).
9 Mar 2012

SIU SAU KUEN v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

SIU SAU KUEN v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2010

Compensation must be the open market value at the date of resumption (15 October 2005) under s12(d) Cap 124; applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities any development value or suitable comparables to support residual or premium‑ratio enhancements, so the Tribunal applied direct comparison method to local comparables and awarded HKD 4,710,000.
8 Jan 2009

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

CACV176/2007

The Court of Appeal held that compensation under the FSRO for extinguishment of proprietary marine rights is to be assessed by a capital/notional purchase valuation (the diminution in open market value of the lot with and without the marine rights) rather than by a pure tort measurement; the tribunal must apply that valuation approach and determine the appropriate valuation date and the effect, if any, of subsequent events including the surrender and any ex gratia payment (the ex gratia payment is not automatically deductible and requires factual and legal determination).
8 Jan 2009

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

CACV177/2007

The Court allowed the appeal and held that compensation under the FSRO for extinguishment of proprietary marine rights is to be assessed by reference to the diminution in capital value attributable to the loss of those rights (notional purchase/difference in value approach), with the precise valuation issues (including the proper valuation date and the relevance of subsequent events such as de facto access, surrender and any ex gratia payment) remitted to the Lands Tribunal for determination; betterment arising from the acquiring scheme is not to reduce compensation absent statutory provision…