Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Definition of street

Legal area

Court

20 Jun 2017

SKY ACE ENTERPRISES LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

SKY ACE ENTERPRISES LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV126/2015

The court allowed the appeal in part and granted leave to apply for judicial review limited to the second and third grounds and part of the fourth ground because those grounds were reasonably arguable: (a) there was an arguable case that the Government may have abandoned its reserved right of way by long use and charging of rates; (b) there was an arguable case that the Incorporated Owners may have effectively relinquished their right in exchange for rental payments (a mixed question of fact and law); and (c) there were reasonably arguable complaints about the Tribunal's assessment of special…
28 Apr 2014

FAIRBO INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

FAIRBO INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL35/2012

The Court quashed the Tribunal's findings that the Lanes were government land by surrender by estoppel and that a right of way had been created in favour of the Government because the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant and material evidence (the 1957 assignments conveying parts of the Lanes and the fact that the intended new lot numbers were never implemented) and because the evidence relied upon did not reasonably support a legal right of way as distinct from a mere licence; the technical ground was also wrongly relied on as it was not live. The appropriate remedy is quashing the…
21 Apr 2006

INTERNATIONAL TRADER LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

INTERNATIONAL TRADER LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL161/2005

The development must be treated for plot ratio and height purposes as a single building on a single site under BPR reg.21(3); because part of the building would be on R(C)7 land whose plot ratio and height limits are exceeded by the proposed submissions, both submissions contravene the OZP and the Building Authority was entitled under BO s.16(1) to reject the plans; factual findings on abuttal and street definition were reasonable and the applicant's extraneous post‑enactment material was inadmissible.
30 Sept 1993

THE QUEEN v. HUI SIU SUN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HUI SIU SUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA337/1993

The court held that s3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance does not exclude privately owned thoroughfares from being 'streets', s83B does not require a different definition, a privately owned arcade deliberately provided and freely used by the public qualifies as both a 'street' and a 'public place' for s83B, and the magistrate erred in dismissing the information on the basis of private ownership alone.
24 May 1983

CHO HSUN CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

CHO HSUN CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1910/1982

The 6.5 metre rear strip (the 7-foot set back together with the 3-foot reserved right of way) constitutes a street more than 4.5 metres wide within the Buildings Ordinance and Building (Planning) Regulations; the existence of temporary structures did not change its essential features or reduce its width; accordingly the Building Authority's objections under the Buildings Ordinance/Building (Planning) Regulations (including section 16(1)(d) as applied) to the 1981 submissions were valid and the plaintiff's application is dismissed.
14 Dec 1982

C.G. & L. INVESTMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

C.G. & L. INVESTMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR4/1981

The decked nullah qualified as a ‘street’ under the statutory definitions and established Crown practice; the decking was undertaken for multiple reasons and not entirely because of the public works scheme underpinning the resumption, so the Pointe Gourde exclusion does not apply; consequently the resumed land is a Class A site and compensation should be assessed on that basis, awarded at HK$21,000,000 plus interest and costs, with credit for sums already paid.

Hong Kong Case Law

SKY ACE ENTERPRISES LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

FAIRBO INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

INTERNATIONAL TRADER LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

THE QUEEN v. HUI SIU SUN

CHO HSUN CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

C.G. & L. INVESTMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS