Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compulsory acquisition

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2021

廖笑對地政總署署長

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2571
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL973/2021

The court refused leave because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Director lawfully relied on Cap.28 to resume the land; statutory procedures under Cap.370 govern claims for compensation and do not prevent resumption; there was no clear, unambiguous promise to found a legitimate expectation; the applicant had received provisional ex gratia and relocation payments, and precedent (Wong Wai Hing) precluded the relief sought.
1 Dec 2020

KU KWOK YING (古國英) in his personal Capacity and in his capacity as one of the Administrators of the Estate v. KU KWOK MING (古國明) in his personal capacity and in his capacity as one of the Administrators of the Estate AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3023
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1698/2019

The SPA, though conditional, had the effect of changing the nature of the testator's interest so that by the time of death the testator no longer had sole legal and beneficial ownership of the Property; therefore the specific devise was adeemed and the Property (or its monetary equivalent) falls into the residuary estate.
14 Apr 2020

CHAN SHIU CHONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 12
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR2/2012

Tribunal exercised its discretion under the LRO to fix pre‑judgment interest at 6% per annum on provisional payments and applicable balances from the resumption date to the dates immediately prior to provisional payments or judgment as applicable; found sealed and enhanced Calderbank offers did not beat the judgment awards once proper interest was included; declined to depart from the ordinary compensation approach and ordered respondent to pay applicants' professional remuneration and costs (to be taxed on High Court scale if not agreed) and to pay specified pre‑ and post‑judgment interest.
14 Apr 2020

CHAN SHIU CHONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 12
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2012

The tribunal exercised its statutory discretion under the Lands Resumption Ordinance to fix interest at 6% per annum on provisional payments and relevant balances from the resumption date to the dates specified; it found the Respondent's sealed and enhanced sealed offers did not beat the tribunal awards once the correct interest on provisional payments and balances was included; accordingly the Respondent was ordered to pay the specified interest, post‑judgment interest at judgment rate for the post‑judgment period, professional remuneration and the applicants' costs to be taxed on High Court…
29 Mar 2018

TREASURE BASE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 22
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRW1/2015

Because the HCMP Proceedings and these proceedings involve the same parties, the same Subject Lots and key common legal issues (interpretation of the Block Crown Lease regarding columbarium use and alleged estoppel), and because resolution of those issues in the High Court will prevent inconsistent findings and wasted costs and is a more appropriate forum for complex lease construction, the Lands Tribunal should stay its proceedings pending determination of the HCMP Proceedings; delay can be remedied by interest and the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to compensation.
12 Jan 2017

陳銳珍對市區重建局

Citation

陳銳珍對市區重建局
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP107/2016

The originating summons was struck out because the plaintiff's factual narrative contradicted undisputed documentary history and prior judgments; the compensation and possession issues had been litigated or abandoned and the present claim disclosed no reasonable cause and constituted an abuse of process or vexatious litigation, warranting dismissal under Order 18 r19 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
15 Nov 2016

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/2015

The Court declined to convert the judgment into broad declarations and instead set aside the Tribunal's award and remitted the matter to the Lands Tribunal to determine compensation in accordance with this Court's judgment; the Court held that Before and After values must be assessed by reference to the same valuation date and prevailing market expectations and that no differentiation should be made between those values in respect of deferment period and risk adjustments as a matter of law; Scenario 3 was rejected as speculative and unsupported by evidence; costs of the appeals were ordered t…
15 Nov 2016

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2015

The Court held there should be no differentiation between the 'Before Value' and 'After Value' in respect of deferment period and uncertainty/risk — both values must be assessed by reference to the same prevailing market expectations; the Lands Tribunal's award is set aside and the case remitted to the Tribunal to determine compensation in accordance with this Court's judgment; declarations were unnecessary; costs of the appeals ordered that each party bear their own costs; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused for both parties.
16 May 2016

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV13/2015

Court held that (1) the FSRO legal assumption that reclamation is to be treated as having occurred on the authorization date is a legal fiction for accrual but does not change real‑world market expectations or permit divergent uncertainty treatments between before/with‑marine and after/without‑marine valuations; (2) the same public, prevailing market expectations at the valuation date must inform both valuations and the uncertainty/risk factor must be applied consistently; (3) mid‑stream open container storage is not a 'godown' under Special Condition 3(a) which requires a warehouse/building;…
8 Jan 2009

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV176/2007

The Court of Appeal held that compensation under the FSRO for extinguishment of proprietary marine rights is to be assessed by a capital/notional purchase valuation (the diminution in open market value of the lot with and without the marine rights) rather than by a pure tort measurement; the tribunal must apply that valuation approach and determine the appropriate valuation date and the effect, if any, of subsequent events including the surrender and any ex gratia payment (the ex gratia payment is not automatically deductible and requires factual and legal determination).