Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reclamation

Legal area

Court

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).
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

CACV120/2015

Court of Appeal held that the CFA formula (difference between open market value with and without marine rights at authorization date) must be applied using the same set of market expectations and the same assessment of uncertainty for both valuations; the Tribunal erred in treating the legal fiction that reclamation was completed as altering evidential risk/deferral; Tribunal wrongly treated open mid‑stream container storage as a 'godown' (which requires a warehouse/building); adjustments must be made to the Before valuation for sub‑tenancy and demolition errors and remaining valuation questi…
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

CACV116/2015

The Court held that the CFA's treatment of reclamation as deemed to have occurred is a legal assumption for accrual and does not change real‑world market expectations; therefore the same market expectations and uncertainty/risk factors must inform both valuations (with and without marine rights). The Tribunal erred in (a) applying a different (effectively 100%) risk factor to the After Value, (b) construing 'godown' to include open mid‑stream storage (the correct construction requires a building), and (c) failing to account for the sub‑tenancy deferment and admitted demolition cost calculatio…
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…
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

CACV119/2015

The Court held that the CFA measure of compensation stands but requires that market expectations and their uncertainty be assessed by reference to public information and reality and applied consistently to both the value with marine rights and value without marine rights; the Tribunal erred in treating the after valuation as carrying a different (effectively unitary) certainty and in construing 'godown' to include open storage for mid‑stream operations; the Tribunal also failed to account for the three‑month sub‑tenancy and accepted an agreed correction to demolition costs, so parts of the Tr…