Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Comparables and valuation adjustments

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2024

CHAN KWOK FAI 對房屋署署長

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 61
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDHA3/2023

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on adjusting the initial assessed value by indices as the primary method because the initial value is not a market transaction and may be inaccurate; it accepted the respondent's expert use of the direct comparison method with recent Galaxy Court comparables, appropriate RVD A‑class time adjustments and attribute adjustments, and determined the current market value as $2,890,000 as at 21 December 2023, yielding a premium of approximately $1,067,805 under Schedule 1(b).
21 May 2021

FOOK LEE HOLDINGS LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 36
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR2/2016

The Tribunal concluded that Item 13 of Part I of the Schedule to the Ordinance bars compensation because the applicant suffered no loss from relocation of the ancillary car parking within the same lot; accordingly nil compensation is payable for the temporary occupation of the TOA during the Relevant Period. The Tribunal nonetheless assessed that, if Item 13 did not apply, the open market rent payable for the TOA during the Relevant Period would be HK$4,935,840 (capitalised assessment as at 26 February 2014).
21 Aug 2015

ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR4/2013

The Tribunal accepted market value as at 2 June 2012 on a vacant possession basis, rejected numerous comparables as unreliable due to excessive or inappropriate adjustments, accepted five comparables with reasoned adjustments, calculated an average adjusted unit rate of $1,259,399/sq m and determined the market value of the Property (27.8 sq m) at $35,000,000; consequential claims for interest, professional fees and costs were adjourned.
27 Feb 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

The Tribunal excluded comparables from buildings without lift service, accepted the expert's comparison method but modified several adjustment levels (time, location, floor, age/condition, building entrance, quantum/size) to values the Tribunal found appropriate, rejected the respondent's methodology of averaging unadjusted unit rates as legally and methodologically incorrect, determined the adopted average adjusted unit rate at HK$89.40 per sq.m. and, using the Premises' saleable area, fixed the PMR at HK$16,200 per month exclusive of rates and management fees; the Tribunal further held the…
25 Jul 2003

DISCREET LTD v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

DISCREET LTD v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR14/2002

Tribunal rejected the applicant's separate garden-land valuation and NTEH development model because the development model must reflect applicable zoning and lease conditions and the resumed land retained building potential; the severance effect was negligible given the small proportion of land taken and the respondent's before-and-after residual valuation using Zone R(C) parameters was preferred; compensation assessed as HK$1,530,000.
2 Jul 2003

DAVIDSON, JUSTIN CRESEY v. NG HON SUN MEYAR

Citation

DAVIDSON, JUSTIN CRESEY v. NG HON SUN MEYAR
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT41/2003

The Tribunal identified suitable comparables from the RVD lists, excluded those with materially earlier commencement dates absent indexation, made quantifiable adjustments for orientation, facilities and management fees, plotted adjusted unit rents against floor level to identify the market trend, and concluded that a monthly rent of HK$25,000 (exclusive of management fee and rates but inclusive of the car parking space and government rent) represents the market rent for the new tenancy.
24 Jun 2003

PACIFIC KNIGHT LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN RESTAURANT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PACIFIC KNIGHT LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN RESTAURANT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT208/2002

Tribunal selected the three most relevant comparables (Nos.1,5,6), adopted the expert's adjustment methodology for size and age, used Private Domestic Rental Indices for time adjustment, rejected an additional downward adjustment for the adjacent construction site because the adverse effects were not apparent to the market at the valuation date, adjusted Comparable 6's effective rent by averaging the landlord's received sum and the tenant's effective payment to reflect the inducement, calculated an average adjusted unit rent of $252.9/sq.m. applied to the Premises (240.8 sq.m.) to determine P…
5 Mar 2002

Samwise Ltd. v. Leong Mai Leng

Citation

Samwise Ltd. v. Leong Mai Leng
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT68/2001

Tribunal accepted same-building comparables (Flats B5, A4, C9), made a $1,000 allowance to comparables with an extra servants' room, applied adjustments for level/privacy, size and view, rejected block-letting and renovation adjustments, averaged the resulting adjusted unit rates and determined the prevailing market rent to be $45,000 per month exclusive, and refused to award costs.
12 Nov 2001

GEORGE COLIN MAGNUS & ANOTHER v. LEE CHONG ESTATES LTD.

Citation

GEORGE COLIN MAGNUS & ANOTHER v. LEE CHONG ESTATES LTD.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT162/2001

The Tribunal fixed the prevailing market rent for the two year tenancy commencing 1 July 2001 at HK$49,000 per month (exclusive of rates and management fees). It did so by adopting the direct comparison method, rejecting the 1st and 7th comparables as outliers, accepting time adjustments per the Rating & Valuation Department indices, applying a 0.25% per floor adjustment by floor number, accepting a lump sum deduction/addition for fixtures and chattels (fixed at HK$2,000 for the subject and HK$1,500 for certain comparables), deducting HK$2,500 for covered parking where applicable, applying a…
28 Jun 2000

John James Toohey v. Hero Plaza Ltd.

Citation

John James Toohey v. Hero Plaza Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT60/1999

The Tribunal accepted the direct comparison method but rejected reliance on a single comparable; it averaged adjusted unit rates from four nearby 23 Tung Shan Terrace comparables to derive an average adjusted unit rate of $244.45/sq.m., applied that to an equivalent area of 85.24 sq.m. (flat plus terrace valued at one eighth of the flat) to compute a monthly rent of $20,837, added a car parking allowance of $2,300 to reach $23,137 and rounded to $23,000 per month as the prevailing market rent effective 1 July 1999, and ordered a two-year new tenancy on that basis.