Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review under section 11a

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2008

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

LDRA505/2001

The application for review was refused because the Tribunal interpreted section 11A as requiring that the respondent be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the first-stage decision and found the applicant's new factors (possible refunds from increased WACC and a new 2008 appeal) did not constitute sufficiently cogent reasons to overturn the prior case management decision to select a single test appeal and maintain stays on the other appeals.
3 Dec 2008

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

LDRA537/1999

The Tribunal interpreted s11A as creating a two-stage review procedure and held that the first-stage decision whether to review should not be made ex parte in ordinary cases; the respondent is prima facie entitled to be heard. Applying case management discretion, the judge found the applicants new arguments (prospect of refunds from increased WACC and a new 2008 appeal) were not cogent reasons to revisit the 3 November decision selecting a single test appeal and staying the others, and therefore refused the application to review and upheld the prior case management order.
3 Dec 2008

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

LDRA366/2002

The Tribunal held that under s11A a review is a two‑stage process and the initial decision whether to review is itself a judicial decision normally requiring the respondent to be heard; there were no cogent new factors (the refund argument or the separate 2008 appeal) sufficient to disturb the Tribunal's prior case‑management decision to select a single test appeal and keep other appeals stayed, and therefore the application for review was refused.
3 Dec 2008

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

LDRA820/2003

The Tribunal concluded that section 11A contemplates a two-stage review and that the respondent is prima facie entitled to be heard at the first stage; the applicant failed to demonstrate cogent and overriding reasons to revisit the 3 November case management decision, so the original decision to select a single test appeal and stay other appeals is upheld and the application for review is refused.
22 Jul 2003

JOHN ROBERT GORDON CHENEY v. COLLECTIVE (NOMINEES) LTD

Citation

JOHN ROBERT GORDON CHENEY v. COLLECTIVE (NOMINEES) LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT70/2001

The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's preliminary application: the Amended Summons and the grant of leave to amend were not vulnerable to the Applicant's procedural attack at this preliminary stage; questions about the sufficiency of grounds, scope of review and admissibility of evidence are premature and are to be determined during the substantive review; there was no statutory basis for the Applicant's preliminary application and relitigation of matters already ruled upon amounted to abuse of process.
5 Jan 2002

MRS. VERONICA BOURKE v. MAXWELL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.

Citation

MRS. VERONICA BOURKE v. MAXWELL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT345/2000

The Respondent's application for review was dismissed because the supplemental expert report was inadmissible: the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and no adequate explanation for delay was offered; additionally the supplemental report lacked objective foundation for the +1.5% adjustment and failed to show greater demand for the subject premises; there was no basis to displace the HK$30,000 per annum adjustment; consequently the review failed and costs were ordered against the Respondent.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

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

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

JOHN ROBERT GORDON CHENEY v. COLLECTIVE (NOMINEES) LTD

MRS. VERONICA BOURKE v. MAXWELL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.