Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Comparables valuation

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2014

BRIGHT DRAGON PROPERTIES LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

BRIGHT DRAGON PROPERTIES LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR3/2007

Court found the enclosure at the Portion fell within the Building and did not affect the structure, thus was exempt under Buildings Ordinance s.41(3); the applicant was entitled to compensation for its right to use the Portion and the Portion should be valued on its best use as shop area at 7.94 sq m x $263,195/sq m = $2,090,000; for the Upper Floors the tribunal accepted the respondent expert's comparables analysis with adjustments, discarded certain outlier comparables, and fixed an adjusted unit rate of $40,539/sq m giving value of $24,445,000; the tribunal rejected the applicant expert's…
11 Jan 2012

LAI SHUN HANG v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

LAI SHUN HANG v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR3/2010

Tribunal retained AC4/RC2 as an appropriate comparable, rejected the applicant's ad hoc weighting scheme and adopted equal weighting of the six comparables after making specific adjustments (time, location -15% to -20%, clear frontage, headroom, visibility and quantum as set out by the Tribunal), rejected depth and structural column adjustments, and applied the conventional term‑and‑reversion method for the ground floor tenancy, producing a total compensation award of HKD 10,268,500.
12 May 2005

DELIGHT WORLD LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

DELIGHT WORLD LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2004

Section 12(aa) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance requires that planning zoning/designation under the Town Planning Ordinance be ignored in assessing compensation; therefore the value of land for purposes legitimately permitted by the lease (Melhado use) is to be taken into account for compensation even if such use has not commenced and even if later planning controls would have prevented that use, so planning restrictions under the Town Planning Ordinance cannot reduce compensation in valuation where s12(aa) applies.
21 Oct 2003

NAM CHUN INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

NAM CHUN INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR3/2000

The tribunal must assess on the evidence whether the Applicant's comparables contained speculative 'hope value'; evidence of hope value cannot be automatically excluded and if there is no evidence of inflation the comparables and the comparing‑like‑with‑like method may be used; on the balance of probabilities the Applicant's comparables were not shown to be inflated and compensation is to be awarded based on unit rate $12,000/m2 leading to total compensation of $56,970,000.
14 Aug 2003

DOO YUEN SUN WILBR SONNY v. CHANG YOK FONG

Citation

DOO YUEN SUN WILBR SONNY v. CHANG YOK FONG
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT85/2003

Exclude Comparable 7 because its location on busy Waterloo Road materially differs from the subject and remaining comparables; adopt effective‑area approach for ancillary accommodation using ratios yard/open roof 0.1 and penthouse 0.4; use car parking valuation approach of Applicant; use Rating & Valuation May 2003 index where available and project June/July 2003 by an average 1.5% monthly decline; apply adjusted average unit rate $145.2 per sq.m. to effective area 143.4 sq.m. to fix prevailing market rent at $21,000 per month exclusive of rates and management fee; grant new two‑year tenancy…
15 Jan 2002

NAM CHUN INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

NAM CHUN INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1636/2001

Section 12(c) excludes compensation for expectancies or probabilities of future grants or interests (eg licences) but does not exclude valuation of the land's inherent attributes or potentialities; where comparable sales are properly analogous (not driven by the resumption scheme) their prices reflecting potentialities may be used to assess market value under s.12(d); on the facts the Lands Tribunal correctly used comparable sales and the appeals are dismissed.
25 May 2001

Dragon House Investment Ltd. v. The Secretary for Transport

Citation

Dragon House Investment Ltd. v. The Secretary for Transport
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR31/2000

Tribunal held that s12(aa) precludes taking CDA zoning into account but did not preclude recognising development potential in the present value where, on the facts, the land was suitable for residential development; the Tribunal adopted a 'no-zone' starting point, determined highest and best use as residential (R(A)), accepted the applicant's residential comparables with adjustments, and awarded market value compensation accordingly.
22 May 2001

Colin Williams v. Coleus Development Ltd.

Citation

Colin Williams v. Coleus Development Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT463/2000

With limited direct rental evidence the Tribunal must rely on the best available comparable (House C11) without adjustment; rateable value does not supplant direct rental evidence and no specific adjustment is warranted for a common tenant's break clause; PMR fixed at $20,430 per month exclusive and rounded to $20,500.
13 Feb 2001

LAURENCE STEVENS AND ANOTHER v. CHOW WAI LAN

Citation

LAURENCE STEVENS AND ANOTHER v. CHOW WAI LAN
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT435/2000

The Tribunal selected four reliable comparables (Nos.2,3,4,6), adjusted for parking where shown, calculated an average unit rate of $187.17 per sq.m., multiplied that rate by the subject flat's saleable area of 116.8 sq.m. to obtain $21,861 which was rounded to $21,850 per month; on that basis a new two‑year tenancy from 6 January 2001 at $21,850 inclusive of rates and management charges was ordered, with deposit increased pro rata.
28 Sept 2000

Adrian King and Another v. Double Crown Ltd.

Citation

Adrian King and Another v. Double Crown Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT383/1999

Using the direct comparison method the Tribunal treated Flats 1A and 1B as the best comparables, time-adjusted their average passing rent, applied a combined adjustment of -15% for lack of appliances and poor internal condition, and determined the prevailing market rent as $22,500 per month exclusive as at 30 November 1999; the Tribunal also reduced the tenant's break clause notice from 3 to 2 months based on prior terms and market practice.