Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Town planning ordinance

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2021

THE METHODIST CHURCH, HONG KONG v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1060
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL55/2011

The Board failed to consider or adequately consider the material issue of community needs for Government/Institution/Community (GIC) facilities when imposing building height restrictions and setbacks in both the Wan Chai and Yau Ma Tei draft OZPs; that failure was Wednesbury unreasonable and amounted to breach of statutory and common law duties to inquire; accordingly the Wanchai Decision and the Yaumatei Decision were quashed by certiorari though mandamus was declined as unnecessary given changed circumstances.
18 Jan 2012

TURBO TOP LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

TURBO TOP LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV256/2011

The court reinstated the stay because the applicant demonstrated a reasonably arguable appeal and, absent a stay, approval of the draft OZP would likely render the appeals nugatory; the balance of convenience favors a stay given the Board can, in the exercise of its powers under the Ordinance, consider amending the draft OZP (including excising the contested lot) to allow non‑controversial parts to proceed, and therefore the stay is just and fair pending determination of the appeals.
21 Nov 2011

TURBO TOP LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

TURBO TOP LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL52/2011

The TPB acted within its statutory powers under the Town Planning Ordinance (including the broad scope afforded by s.4(1) and its proviso) when it rezoned the site to C(1) and imposed a minimum 800 public parking space requirement (subject to minor relaxations); the measures constituted area zoning and preservation of a public asset, not unlawful micro‑management of a specific building, and the challenges on inconsistency, irrelevant considerations, procedural unfairness and discrimination fail.
28 Feb 2006

SMART GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

SMART GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL12/2006

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because none of the alleged grounds were arguable: no procedural unfairness from Secretary reiterating plan notes; no abdication of decision‑making; consideration of precedent was relevant; no clear representation to give rise to legitimate expectation; CA zoning did not amount to unlawful deprivation and the Board's site‑specific conservation, traffic, geological and archaeological reasons were rational.
11 May 1995

HUI SOONG NUI and Another v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

HUI SOONG NUI and Another v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR13/1994

The Tribunal excluded any value effect of the CRA zoning, found many applicant comparables were materially inferior or required excessive upward adjustment, accepted the respondent's Thirteen Streets comparables after appropriate time and location analysis, adjusted to a pragmatic unit rate for the subject's mid-street position of $4,000 per sq ft for building area and 1/8 rate for yard, and rejected capitalising the two-month lease residue as material; accordingly awarded compensation of $1,800,000.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE METHODIST CHURCH, HONG KONG v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

TURBO TOP LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

TURBO TOP LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

SMART GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

HUI SOONG NUI and Another v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS