Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rateable value determination

Legal area

Court

12 Apr 2010

THE HONG KONG ELECTRIC CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

THE HONG KONG ELECTRIC CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA224/2004

The Tribunal ruled that (1) the proportion of assets attributable to HT must be determined by reference to the 31 March 2004 accounts as the best proxy for the state of assets at 1 April 2004 under the Rating Ordinance; (2) HEC's causes of action were constituted when lodged and were not dependent on the Tribunal's later determination, and HEC was entitled to interest on overpaid rates and Government rent for the full pre-judgment and post-judgment periods (subject to interim refund), with the pre-judgment interest assessed at HEC's actual borrowing rates for 2004-2009 as evidenced and judgme…
12 Apr 2010

THE HONG KONG ELECTRIC CO. LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

THE HONG KONG ELECTRIC CO. LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA358/2004

For the final order the Tribunal must use the 31 March 2004 accounts as the best proxy for the state of assets as at 1 April 2004 under s.7A(2) RO; HEC's causes of action were constituted when the appeals were lodged and thus interest under s.12B LTO is available for pre-judgment and post-judgment periods; pre-judgment interest is awarded at HEC's actual borrowing rates for 2004–2009 as evidenced, with judgment rate from the date of judgment; HEC substantially succeeded and is entitled to costs nisi to be taxed if not agreed.
10 Mar 2010

UNI-GROUP CONSULTANTS LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

UNI-GROUP CONSULTANTS LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA85/2009

The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's expert evidence using the direct comparison method with contemporaneous comparables close to the valuation date, rejected reliance on the tenancy commencing 1 January 2009 as unreliable for the 1 October 2008 valuation date given market turmoil, found the alleged disrepair was minor and repairable and did not warrant an allowance, and held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof; accordingly the rateable value of $1,167,120 was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
6 Mar 2001

COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION v. AGRILA LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION v. AGRILA LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2000

The Court held that Rent regulation 2 and the relevant Rent Ordinance provisions validly permit the Commissioner to ascertain rateable value for Government rent purposes by treating leased land as if it were a tenement liable for rates and applying ss.7 and 7A valuation assumptions; it is permissible to take account of development potential and the likelihood of completion in valuation without treating the site as a completed development; Rent regulations 4 and 5 and s.8/s.18(3) are within the powers conferred by s.34 and do not conflict with Basic Law Article 121; therefore the Commissioner’…
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA28/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred in law by refusing to take into account post-projection rentals and his projection was excessively low; projections may be reviewed and corrected on appeal where errors are excessive; accordingly the Tribunal increased the rateable values to $67,200 for two 31st-floor tenements and $66,000 for fifty-eight lower-floor tenements and directed amendment of the Valuation Li…
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA17/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant valuation date was 1 April 1977 and that when valuing at that date the valuer (and the Commissioner when acting later) must consider all relevant evidence available including actual rentals occurring during and after the projection period; the Commissioner erred as a matter of law in refusing to consider post-projection evidence, and his projection understated true values by about 35%, an excessive error warranting correction; consequently the Tribunal set rateable values at the agreed hindsight figures: $67,200 for two 31st-floor tenements and $66,000 for the o…
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA49/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); the Commissioner, when physically valuing in 1982, was obliged to consider all relevant evidence then available including actual rentals during and after the projection period; projections may be revised on appeal where the projection proved materially or excessively wrong; on the facts the Commissioner's projection was excessively conservative and the rateable values must be increased to the agreed hindsight figures (31st floor $67,200; others $66,000).
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA31/1983

The Tribunal holds the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); hindsight evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible and should have been used by the Commissioner; where a projection proves materially erroneous it may be corrected on proposal or appeal notwithstanding concerns about the tone of the list; on the evidence the Commissioner's projection was excessively conservative and the agreed actual values as at 1 April 1977 must be adopted.