Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rateable value

Legal area

Court

10 Jan 2023

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF AFFLUENCE GARDEN v. GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 116
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA591/2021

The Court held that the plaintiff's substantive claim fell within District Court monetary and jurisdictional limits (the injunction did not create rateable value because the IO had no beneficial or lettable interest and was not assessed to rates), the Court of First Instance may order transfer of its own motion, and therefore the whole proceedings, including the counterclaim, were ordered transferred to the District Court under section 43; the plaintiff's objections were unsustainable.
10 Jun 2016

GAINFIELD INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM YI LAI AND OTHERS

Citation

GAINFIELD INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM YI LAI AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3736/2014

The correct date for determining the rateable value under s35 DCO is the date of commencement/issue of the proceedings, therefore the District Court retained jurisdiction despite a later increase in rateable value.
20 Nov 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA368/2004

The tribunal lawfully exercised its discretion: CLP failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on any ground of appeal because approaches 2 and 3 and the CB-related work were found unreliable or inappropriate and had materially increased costs; the unreasonableness of the respondent's WACC approach did not justify CLP presenting its own inappropriate approaches; taxing apportionment difficulties did not make the costs variation unlawful. Leave to appeal was refused and the variation made final with costs awarded against CLP.
20 Nov 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA241/2004

The Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion under the Lands Tribunal Ordinance and relevant RHC rules: CLP failed to show any error of law or a reasonable prospect of success on the grounds challenging disallowance of costs for approach 2, the CB costs (except as used in approach 1), and approach 3; the approaches were found inappropriate or unreliable and had significantly increased costs and hearing time; taxation difficulties did not justify reversing the Costs Order; leave to appeal against the Costs Order is refused and costs awarded against CLP.
25 Sept 2015

葉祥偉對差餉物業估價署署長

Citation

葉祥偉對差餉物業估價署署長
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA26/2014

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the assessment excessive; the respondent's valuation using the direct comparison method with reasonable adjustments by an accepted expert valuer was credible and the statutory assumptions (including landlord repair obligation and hypothetical letting) were correctly applied, supporting the confirmed rateable value of HK$138,120.
12 Feb 2014

CHAN YAU WING v. CHAN YAU HING

Citation

CHAN YAU WING v. CHAN YAU HING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP600/2013

The value relevant to the jurisdictional monetary limit is the value of the alleged trust; on the evidence the alleged trust value did not exceed $3,000,000 and the rateable value of the property was below the District Court threshold, therefore the District Court retained jurisdiction and the defendant's summons to transfer was dismissed.
3 Jan 2014

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA365/2004

Tribunal holds that using CLP 2004 actual accounts to interpolate per‑customer profitability is impermissible hindsight; it adopts Mr Davis Original Method (accounts to 31 Dec 2003 plus customer numbers at 1 Apr 2004) to reflect physical and economic state; HL AUC/CS are to be excluded from HL asset base but HT AUC/CS remain in HT asset base; wayleaves, pole sites and DCS need not be separately included in HL asset base because their value is captured in the divisible balance; if capital values are required the decapitalisation rate is 12.35%; no disallowance of interest for delay.
3 Jan 2014

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA241/2004

The Tribunal held that Ms Jim's method of interpolating from CLP's 2004 accounts to derive exact per-customer growth rates was impermissible hindsight and rejected that approach; it adopted Mr Davis' Original Method (use of accounts to 31 Dec 2003 combined with customer numbers at 1 Apr 2004) to reflect physical and economic state; HT's AUC and CS are included in HT asset base (HL's AUC/CS are excluded); wayleaves, pole sites and DCS need not be separately included in the HL asset base because their contribution is captured in the divisible balance; the appropriate decapitalisation/capitalisa…
3 Jan 2014

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA366/2004

The Tribunal prohibited interpolation using full post-List Date (2004) accounts as a method to derive exact growth rates for projection at the valuation date and adopted Mr Davis's Original Method to reflect physical and economic state at the List Date; asset-split reference is to SOC register subject to legal qualifications (exclude non-capable-for-occupation assets from RA; contributions of non-registered assets captured in DB); HL's non-rateable AUC and CS are to be excluded from HL asset base but tenant's AUC/CS may remain in HT asset base; wayleaves, pole sites and DCS need not be separa…
3 Jan 2014

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA369/2004

Tribunal holds that use of full post‑List‑Date (calendar 2004) accounts as employed by CRV/Ms Jim to interpolate per‑customer profitability for valuation at AVD is impermissible; adopt Mr Davis' Original Method to reflect physical and economic state at List Date; HT's AUC and capital stores may be included in HT asset base while HL's AUC/CS are excluded; wayleaves, pole sites and DCS need not be separately included in HL asset base for the asset split because their contributions are captured in the divisible balance, but if separately valued they must be capitalised using the tribunal's decap…