Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setbacks

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2015

LEIGHTON PROPERTY COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

LEIGHTON PROPERTY COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2012

The court refused leave on multiple questions raised by the TPB and Hysan except to grant leave on the specific proportionality question (Question 2 in CACV 232/2012 and Question 1 in CACV 233/2012); it held many issues were not reasonably arguable or were not GPI, applied established public law principles on Tameside duty and procedural fairness to the specific facts, and directed reconsideration by TPB consistent with the court's November 2014 judgment.
13 Nov 2014

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV233/2012

The Court held (1) the TPB had statutory power under the TPO to impose BHRs, PHRs, NBAs and setbacks as planning measures (not ultra vires spot zoning); (2) Articles 6 and 105 do not engage a micro-level proportionality review of individual DOZP decisions absent a systemic constitutional challenge and, if proportionality applies, it is directed at the law with a wide margin of appreciation; but (3) the TPB breached its duty to make adequate inquiries and to give fair and proper consideration to the applicants' substantive technical representations at the CWB and WC DOZP hearings; that procedu…
13 Nov 2014

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2012

The TPB had statutory power to impose BHRs, PHRs, NBAs and setbacks as planning measures; Articles 6 and 105 do not, absent a systemic challenge, convert every planning restriction into a freestanding constitutional proportionality inquiry at the micro decision level; however the TPB breached public law in these proceedings by failing to make adequate inquiries (Tameside duty), by failing to give Hysan a fair hearing and proper consideration of its evidence (including technical expert material), and by improperly relying on the existence of minor relaxation procedures as a reason to reject su…
14 Sept 2012

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING

Citation

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL38/2011

The Board had statutory power to impose site-specific BHRs, NBAs and setbacks and its iterative process incorporating expert AVAs provided sufficient evidential basis for the restrictions imposed; the Court will defer to the Board on planning and design judgments except where a specific measure lacks cogent justification — here the 5m NBA at Hysan Place was arbitrary and is quashed; all other challenges dismissed and the Wanchai judicial review dismissed in full.
14 Sept 2012

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL57/2011

The Town Planning Board lawfully had power to impose site-specific BHRs, NBAs and setbacks under the TPO; the Board's iterative methodology incorporating expert AVAs and Planning Department input provided sufficient rational basis for the specific restrictions imposed in Causeway Bay and Wanchai except for the 5 m NBA at Hysan Place which lacked adequate justification and was arbitrary; the court must defer to the Board on planning and design judgments and dismissed the applicants' challenges save for quashing the 5 m NBA at Hysan Place.

Hong Kong Case Law

LEIGHTON PROPERTY COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD