Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Valuation adjustments

  • 31 Jan 2024

    KEENRICH TRADING LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    [2024] HKLdT 11
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR1/2022

    The Tribunal preferred Ms Ng's more conservative comparable adjustments in combination with the Tribunal's own location and adjustment determinations, adopted multiplication of adjustments, accepted a unit rate of HK$255,000 per sq m based on weighting of comparables (with emphasis on the closest and most proximate transaction), deducted HK$10,000 for reinstatement of an unauthorised cockloft and determined market value as 56.49 sq m × HK$255,000 − HK$10,000 = HK$14,394,950 (rounded and awarded as HK$14,400,000).

  • 19 May 2015

    PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP224/2015

    The Court granted leave only where the proposed ground raised an arguable error of law (Applicant Ground 5; Respondent Grounds 3, 6 and 10) and refused the remainder because they were, in substance, valuation judgments or misconceived legal points. Amended grounds that materially change focus must first be presented to the Tribunal for its comments before the Court of Appeal will entertain them.

  • 10 Jan 2006

    TOPPY YEAR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    TOPPY YEAR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR19/2002

    The Tribunal rejected certain extreme comparables (Comparable ARC4 and 26 Praya) and adopted six suitable comparables with intermediate, reasoned adjustments for location, age, frontage, headroom, size/layout and agreed time adjustments; applying an average adjusted unit rate of HK$53,340/m2 to the agreed effective area of 53.16 m2 produced an OMV of HK$2,835,554, rounded to HK$2,836,000, which the Tribunal ordered paid as compensation.

  • 11 Mar 2005

    WONG KAI HUNG v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

    Citation
    WONG KAI HUNG v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDHA4/2004

    The Tribunal determined the prevailing market value as at the valuation date (8 September 2004) by selecting non-corner comparables (Comparables 2,4,8,9,11) and discarding Comparable 13 as temporally remote, applying accepted percentage adjustments (including 0.3% per floor, time index adjustments, view/orientation, averaged 3% for internal defects and a specific noise adjustment for Comparable 11), deriving an average adjusted unit rate of $22,276 per sq.m and applying it to the saleable area of 33.7 sq.m to arrive at $750,700; costs awarded to appellant to be taxed if not agreed.

  • 16 Jun 2004

    何永鴻 v. 偉福置業有限公司

    Citation
    何永鴻 v. 偉福置業有限公司
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT166/2003

    On review the Tribunal rejected the Applicant's proposed changes to adjustments for Age/Condition, Quantum and Building Entrance but accepted that the exceptionally high management fee warranted an adjustment to exclusive rent; the Tribunal reduced the estimated exclusive rent by 20% (from the previously determined figure) to HKD 12,960 and set the gross rent inclusive of management fee at HKD 17,100 plus applicable Government rates; the deposit was retained at two months and there was no order as to costs.

  • 15 Jun 2004

    KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS

    Citation
    KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV9/2002

    The Court held that compensation for individual unit holders is to be based on the agreed joint valuation subject to adjustment for unit‑specific special features (eg exclusive roof access, special/ recent decoration) not reflected in that valuation; heads of recoverable loss include removal expenses, reasonable incidental purchase expenses, possible separate recovery for borrowing/mortgage costs if particularised, additional repurchase cost where market rise prevented timely acquisition, and rental allowance limited by the duty to mitigate; interest and costs follow established rules includi…

  • 7 Jan 2003

    EASE GOLD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

    Citation
    EASE GOLD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDMR13/1999

    The Tribunal held that the open market rent for the temporary occupation must be assessed subject to the prevailing 'Undetermined' zoning; comparables for open storage lacking Section 16 approval were generally unsuitable, but adjusted comparables that reflected likelihood of alternative use and formation costs could inform valuation; fishpond (existing lawful) use at $2.9/m2 p.a. was accepted as appropriate baseline, and after analysis the Tribunal adopted an adjusted unit rent of $93/m2 p.a. for calculation of payable rents and ordered specific payments.

  • 30 Jul 2002

    Secretary for Transport v. Wong Bun

    Citation
    Secretary for Transport v. Wong Bun
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDRW14/2001

    On review the Tribunal held that it did not err in admitting and using comparables AC1, AC2, RC1 and AC4 for valuation of private car space P7 and refused to increase its value (remained HK$300,000); it accepted comparable AL2 for lorry space L17 but allowed an additional +10% adjustment for narrower width (in addition to +11% for car parking ratio), revising AL2 adjusted price to HK$363,000 and recalculating the average adjusted lorry comparables to HK$435,000, thereby varying total compensation from HK$1,964,000 to HK$1,969,000; the Tribunal admitted pages 222-225 of Exhibit A-2 but rejecte…

  • 20 Aug 2001

    Concept Asia Ltd. v. Yuen Kit Man Florence

    Citation
    Concept Asia Ltd. v. Yuen Kit Man Florence
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT147/2000

    The Tribunal rejected Rateable Value and the respondent's broad R&V comparables because several were poor matches and required excessive adjustments; it relied on recent actual rental transactions within No.12 Broadwood Road (Flats A1, B4, C3), applied specified adjustments (floor +3% for ground, view +5% or +7.5%, no chattels adjustment) and determined the prevailing market rent to be HKD 22,000 per month exclusive of rates and management fee.

  • 27 Mar 2001

    Tioga Corporation Limited v. Gold Flight Investment Ltd.

    Citation
    Tioga Corporation Limited v. Gold Flight Investment Ltd.
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDNT379/2000

    The Tribunal accepted and applied the expert's comparables and adjustments (with Tribunal modifications: a flat $1,000 allowance for covered versus open car park and acceptance of the expert's view adjustments for Unit A), excluded the obvious outlier comparable, averaged the remaining adjusted comparables and thus determined the PMR to be $70,000 per month exclusive of rates and management fee; on that basis a two-year new tenancy from 28 October 2000 was ordered.