Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compensation for resumed land

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2012

TSAN LUK YUK YIN v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

TSAN LUK YUK YIN v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS<br>
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR3/2005

The Tribunal found the new expert reports did not constitute a new or amended claim because they do not change the basis or nature of the Item 1 Part II compensation claim; different hypothetical development models are valuation evidence only and do not engage the s.28 time-bar, so leave to file and serve the expert reports was granted.
10 Dec 2010

WONG SO HEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

WONG SO HEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR11/2008

Tribunal selected six comparables (AC1/RC6, AC2/RC5, AC3/RC4, AC4/RC3, AC6/RC2, AC8/RC1), applied specified percentage adjustments (location, quantum, layout, no age adjustment), accepted RVD retail market yield of 5.4% for reversion and term yield of 4.9%, used effective area 58.178 sq.m., computed vacant OMV $3,860,000 and OMV subject to tenancy $3,885,000, and awarded compensation of $3,885,000 to the Applicants.
7 Nov 2007

SO KEE TRANSPORTATION CO LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

SO KEE TRANSPORTATION CO LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRW36/2003

The Tribunal varied its earlier judgment by accepting the parties' agreed severance sum of HKD 1,645,350 (reflecting eight drivers) and refusing to include the 2003 gain on disposal of fixed assets in the 1999–2002 profit calculations because there was insufficient evidence to justify reallocating that gain; consequently the total compensation award was substituted to HKD 7,929,399 with specified breakdowns.
25 Jun 2004

GAIN TALENT DEVELOPMNET LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

GAIN TALENT DEVELOPMNET LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR7/2003

The Tribunal held that the Applicant remained the former owner because the SPA passed the beneficial interest to the Applicant and the Memorandum of Agreement with Everett was only an agreement to enter a SPA with no evidence that a sale to Everett was completed; accordingly the Applicant was entitled to compensation for the resumed lots, assessed and agreed at HK$4,741,000, which the Respondent was ordered to pay.
27 Sept 2002

TANG PING CHOI AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

TANG PING CHOI AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR38/2000

Because stock-taking completed and applicants were expressly instructed not to remove crops, relocation/harvest mitigation was not feasible; the Tribunal found the bulbs were of the lower‑valued Chinese variety, accepted a two‑harvest projection, rejected the applicants' expert's extreme comparable adjustments and some expert statements, accepted respondent's market rent and many of respondent experts' assumptions, and assessed compensation accordingly.
27 Feb 2001

WONG WAN LEUNG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

WONG WAN LEUNG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV19/2000

The Court held that s.4(1) of the Cheung Chau Ordinance operates according to legal entitlement to possession at the commencement date and cannot be resolved solely by historic registration; where forfeiture proceedings were pending at commencement the question of entitlement must be determined by the court in those proceedings before s.4(1) can definitively operate; consequently the appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal and Lands Tribunal orders discharged, and the Tong may pursue determination in the High Court to establish whether s.4(1) or s.6(1) applies.
30 Aug 2000

TANG MAN KIT v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

TANG MAN KIT v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2082/2000

The court dismissed Hip Hing's application for joinder and endorsed the Consent (Tomlin) Summons because Government and the managers had settled the dispute between them, there was no longer a live issue between those parties to justify joining Hip Hing, the Tomlin Order does not adjudicate the merits or preclude Hip Hing from pursuing its rights in separate proceedings, and allegations of perjury did not warrant refusal to endorse the consensual settlement.
27 Jul 2000

ZHOU CUI HAO v. TING FUNG YEE

Citation

ZHOU CUI HAO v. TING FUNG YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7558/1996

Court found Defendant cohabited with deceased, proved she contributed HK$80,000 plus renovation outlay to purchase of Reclamation Street Property and that it was the parties' presumed intention she should have a half interest; constructive trust therefore imposed for a half share of the compensation and interest. Separately the court found a clear assurance and detrimental reliance in relation to Camp Street Property such that constructive trust and proprietary estoppel entitled Defendant to possession and legal and beneficial title to Camp Street Property.