Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disturbance allowance

Legal area

Court

28 Jun 2000

John James Toohey v. Hero Plaza Ltd.

Citation

John James Toohey v. Hero Plaza Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT60/1999

The Tribunal accepted the direct comparison method but rejected reliance on a single comparable; it averaged adjusted unit rates from four nearby 23 Tung Shan Terrace comparables to derive an average adjusted unit rate of $244.45/sq.m., applied that to an equivalent area of 85.24 sq.m. (flat plus terrace valued at one eighth of the flat) to compute a monthly rent of $20,837, added a car parking allowance of $2,300 to reach $23,137 and rounded to $23,000 per month as the prevailing market rent effective 1 July 1999, and ordered a two-year new tenancy on that basis.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA17/1983

The Tribunal held that the statutory rateable‑value multipliers in s53A(4)(a) prescribe a minimum compensation only; reasonable compensation must reflect the tenant's actual loss from being required to give up a protected tenancy early — measured by the value of the tenant's expected future use (capitalised profit rent for the relevant period) plus a disturbance allowance; past occupation or sentimental value is not a monetary measure of compensation; apportionment to sub‑tenants is from the tenant's assessed interest.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA19/1983

The Tribunal held that the statutory rateable‑value formula in Section 53A(4)(a) prescribes only a minimum compensation; reasonable compensation must be assessed as the tenant's actual loss measured by the value of the tenant's expected future use (the tenant's particular interest in the property) plus an allowance for disturbance, and past occupation or sentimental attachment is not a proper component of monetary compensation.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT9/1983

The Tribunal held that s53A(4)(a) minimum multiples of rateable value constitute a statutory floor only; reasonable compensation otherwise must reflect the tenant's actual loss measured by the value of expected future use (capitalised profit rent) plus an allowance for disturbance; past occupation or sentimental value is not a proper monetary measure; established valuation and disturbance principles apply to assess awards.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA22/1983

The Tribunal held that s.53A(4)(a) prescribes minimum compensation calculated by reference to rateable value and length of occupation but does not limit the assessment of what is reasonable; reasonable compensation for dispossessed protected tenants is the equivalent of their actual loss measured by the value of their expected future use (the tenant's interest determined by capitalising profit rent over the relevant period) plus disturbance costs; past occupation or sentimental value is not a monetary measure of compensation; sub-tenants are entitled to an apportioned share of the tenant's in…
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT10/1983

The Tribunal held that s.53A(4)(a) minimum multiples based on rateable value constitute a statutory floor only; reasonable compensation must be assessed as the tenant's actual loss measured by the value of the tenant's expected future use of the tenancy (capitalised profit rent over the relevant period) plus a disturbance allowance, and past occupation or sentimental value are not compensable measures of loss.
23 Jul 1983

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA7/1983

The Tribunal held that s53A's prescribed multiples of rateable value establish a minimum entitlement only; reasonable compensation must be assessed by reference to the tenant's actual loss — principally the value of the tenant's expected future use of the protected tenancy (capitalised profit rent for the appropriate period) plus a disturbance allowance — and past occupation sentimental value is not compensable; apportionment to sub-tenants follows from apportioning the tenant's interest rather than applying a separate statutory formula.

Hong Kong Case Law

John James Toohey v. Hero Plaza Ltd.

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HEI CHUEN AND OTHERS

SCAIFFEE LTD v. CHOW HET CHUEN AND OTHERS