Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extinguishment of rights

Legal area

Court

12 May 2016

WONG HO YAN v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

WONG HO YAN v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2538/2015

Court declared that rights of action under Mortgage (Memorial UB573911) and its Transfer had been extinguished by operation of ss4 and 37 of the Limitation Ordinance because the covenant had been breached by latest 18 November 1971 and the 12-year limitation expired long before any claim by the government, thus the property is free from the incumbrance and declarations were granted.
26 Mar 2010

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

Citation

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

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2009

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.
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).
17 Dec 2003

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

Citation

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

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR23/1999

The application failed Rule 18 because the alleged points of law were not properly identified or confined to law alone (s10(2) and s11 were irrelevant to the claimed defenses), resolution would require application of law to contested facts and expert evidence which were not agreed or before the Tribunal, and the challenge to constitutional validity was inappropriate at this interlocutory stage; accordingly the summons was dismissed as premature.
18 May 1995

Tai Tung Industrial Equipment Ltd v. The Director of Lands

Citation

Tai Tung Industrial Equipment Ltd v. The Director of Lands
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV43/1995

The Court held that the letters relied upon were negotiations and reservations of position, not a written claim within s.12, and that s.12(1)'s requirement that a written claim state the sum the claimant is willing to accept is imperative; therefore no valid claim was made within the statutory period and the Director rightly refused to consider it.

Hong Kong Case Law

WONG HO YAN v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

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

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

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

Tai Tung Industrial Equipment Ltd v. The Director of Lands