18 Mar 2019
On the evidence and the Siu Sau Kuen two‑stage test the Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Subject Properties did not have redevelopment potential at the resumption date; therefore only existing use value applied and the application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and was refused.
26 Mar 2010
The Court held that compensation under Cap.127 is the difference between the open market price the land would have fetched on the date of authorisation (5 May 1995) assuming it enjoyed marine access and the price it would have fetched on that same date assuming access had been lawfully interrupted by completion of the proposed reclamation; subsequent events are generally irrelevant to that valuation and the matter is remitted to the Lands Tribunal to quantify the compensation accordingly.
6 Apr 2004
The Court dismissed the appeal: the Lands Tribunal did not err in law in admitting evidence from experts employed by the respondent's consultants and in discarding tainted investigatory material; the Tribunal's factual conclusions on planting density, bulb classification and valuation, and its rejection of evidence offered by the appellants, were open to it and not legally erroneous; compensation awarded was reasonable; costs nisi awarded to respondent.
15 Jan 2002
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.
14 Sept 2000
Valuation and quantum issues arising from the Corporation's offers fall outside the proper ambit of judicial review under the statutory scheme; the Secretary lawfully relied on independent consultant evidence and internal departmental expertise without breaching s.15(5); the promise to give reasons amounted to a special case but adequate reasons were provided; accordingly the applications to quash the recommendation and resumption orders fail and are dismissed.
14 Sept 2000
The Secretary's recommendation and the Chief Executive in Council's resumption order were lawful: valuation disputes are not amenable to judicial review where a statutory compensation mechanism exists; the Secretary had sufficient material (including independent government consultant valuation and LDC expertise) to be satisfied under s.15(4)(c) and did not breach s.15(5); reasons (including in correspondence and affidavits) were adequate given a prior undertaking to give reasons; accordingly the applications are dismissed.
14 Sept 2000
The applications are dismissed: valuation disputes and the level of offers are not amenable to judicial review; the Secretary had sufficient material (including independent Government Consultant advice and LDC Section input) to be satisfied under s.15(4)(c), there was no unlawful consultation in breach of s.15(5), the reasons provided were adequate in the circumstances and the Chief Executive in Council properly acted on the Secretary's recommendation.
14 Sept 2000
Applications dismissed: valuation and quantum issues are within the Lands Resumption/LDC statutory compensation machinery and not amenable to judicial review; Secretary lawfully relied on internal departmental expertise and an independent government consultant so there was no breach of s.15(5); no Wednesbury irrationality or procedural illegality; where a promise to give reasons was made, adequate reasons were provided.
14 Sept 2000
The court dismissed the applications: valuation disputes and alleged insufficiency of offers are matters for the statutory compensation machinery and not amenable to judicial review; the Secretary lawfully relied on independent government valuation and internal LDC Section expertise without breaching s.15(5); reasons promised were provided and adequate; no Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural impropriety was proved, so the recommendation and resumption orders stand.
25 Apr 2000
Tribunal accepted the applicant expert's location adjustments after site inspection, adopted $300,000 per square metre as the base unit rate, took the subject concrete cockloft at 25% of ground floor value and comparables' cocklofts at 15%, adopted yard/flat roof at 1/6 of ground floor rate, and yields of 3.6% (term) and 4.6% (reversion). Applying those determinations produced an open market value for the premises of HK$20,850,000; together with agreed purchase costs of HK$619,360 the Respondent was ordered to pay HK$21,469,360.