Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Test appeal

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

LDRA133/2006

Section 11A requires a two-stage review process and, absent exceptional circumstances, the respondent must be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the first stage; the applicant failed to demonstrate cogent and overriding reasons (the asserted refund possibility and a new 2008 appeal) to disturb the Tribunal's November 3, 2008 case management decision selecting a single test appeal and maintaining stays, and therefore the application for review is 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

LDRA367/2004

The Tribunal refused the review: s11A establishes a two-stage review process and the first-stage decision is itself a judicial decision that ordinarily requires hearing of the other party; the applicant failed to show cogent and overriding reasons to revisit the 3 November 2008 case management decision selecting a single test appeal and staying other appeals; the asserted new factors (possible refunds from WACC change and a new 2008 appeal) did not justify overturning the prior case management determination and the stays remain appropriate.
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

LDGA21/2001

The Tribunal held that s11A creates a two-stage review process with a one‑month decision requirement and that the respondent is ordinarily entitled to be heard at the first stage; on the facts the applicant failed to show cogent overriding reasons (the prospect of refunds or a new 2008 appeal) to revisit the 3 November case management decision selecting a single test appeal, so the application for review was refused and the stays and test appeal procedure remain in place.
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

LDRA819/2003

The Tribunal held that the first-stage decision under s.11A is not generally to be made ex parte and the respondent was entitled to be heard; having considered the applicant's new points the Tribunal found no cogent reason to revisit its 3 November 2008 case management decision selecting a single test appeal and refusing the review.
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

LDRA367/2002

The Tribunal refused the application to review its 3 November case management decision because (1) s.11A requires a first-stage decision within one month and parties are prima facie entitled to be heard at that stage; (2) the newly raised matters (possible refunds from WACC change and a new 2008 appeal) were not cogent or overriding reasons to displace the prior exercise of case management discretion; (3) practical and procedural efficiency favors a single test appeal with other appeals stayed, and restitution issues can be litigated in the pending High Court action, so the original case mana…
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

LDRA536/1999

The application for review was refused because s.11A mandates a two-stage review and the respondent is entitled to be heard at the first stage; the applicant's newly advanced factors (possible refunds due to WACC changes and a new 2008 appeal) were not sufficiently cogent to disturb the earlier case management decision to proceed by a single test appeal and keep the other appeals stayed, particularly when restitution issues can be pursued in separate High Court proceedings (HCA 2290/2007).
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

LDRA470/2005

The Tribunal refused the application for review and affirmed its 3 November case management decision: the review mechanism under s11A is two‑stage, the respondent is entitled to be heard at the first stage, and the applicant failed to produce cogent and overriding reasons (including the asserted refund risk and new appeal) to revisit the chosen test appeal procedure and lifts of stay; therefore the single test appeal remains and other appeals stay pending its outcome.
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

LDGA767/2002

The application for review was refused because the statutory two‑stage review process requires giving parties an opportunity to be heard at the first stage, and the applicant failed to produce cogent and overriding reasons (such as compelling new evidence) to revisit the Tribunal's earlier case management decision to proceed by a single test appeal and keep other appeals stayed.
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

LDRA469/2005

The Tribunal must allow the respondent an opportunity to be heard at the first stage of a section 11A review and, on the facts and submissions before the court, the applicant failed to demonstrate cogent new reasons to revisit the 3 November case management decision; accordingly the review application is refused and the single test appeal procedure with stays maintained was confirmed.