Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Home purchase allowance

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2026

HO KONG, THE SOLE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FONG MI YEE DECEASED v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 459
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2024

The court granted leave to the Director because the construction of the Home Purchase Allowance policy as to whether an absolute possessory title holder qualifies as an 'owner' raises a question of sufficient general or public importance with potential significant public funding implications; the court refined the question to specify 'absolute possessory title' for clarity and submitted that question to the Court of Final Appeal.
18 Dec 2023

HO KONG, THE SOLE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FONG MI YEE DECEASED v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2343
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1135/2022

Possessory title owners who are entitled to statutory compensation for the open market value of a resumed flat and who occupied the flat at the freezing survey date qualify as "owners" and "owner-occupiers" for the purposes of HPA under the Guidelines; the Appeal Committee and Director erred in construing "owner" as limited to registered/paper owners and their decisions were quashed.
2 Jun 2021

TANG LAI v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2085/2020

On proper construction of the Compensation Policy, the term "owner"/"owner-occupier" for HPA/SA refers to paper owners (those with conventional title and title deeds) as identified at the freezing survey; a person holding a possessory title acquired by adverse possession does not qualify for HPA/SA though they may be entitled to statutory compensation under the LRO; therefore the Appeals Committee's decision to deny HPA/SA to the applicant was correct and the substantive judicial review is dismissed.
1 Jun 2018

BOTH HOST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1171
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL126/2014

The Court held that the operative policy on SA was to be found in the LegCo/Finance Committee papers approved for funding and not in the Information Pamphlet; therefore no clear, unqualified representation in the Pamphlet gave rise to a legitimate expectation enforceable against the Director; failure to call URA survey staff went to weight of evidence rather than fatal procedural unfairness, although there is a general duty to disclose adverse materials relied upon by the decision-maker.
1 Jun 2018

GREAT MIGHTY LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1171
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL125/2014

The court held the operative government policy on HPA/SA is contained in the LegCo/Finance Committee papers (the approved policy) which include an actual user criterion; the Information Pamphlet was only a general guideline and did not create a clear, unambiguous representation giving rise to a legitimate expectation; failure to call URA staff did not amount to fatal procedural unfairness though non‑disclosure of adverse documents raises fairness concerns; on those bases the applicants' legal challenge failed.
14 Sept 2000

LI TING CHUNG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI TING CHUNG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL909/2000

The Secretary lawfully recommended resumption and the Chief Executive in Council lawfully ordered resumption: valuation disputes and alleged low offers are not amenable to judicial review but to the Lands Resumption Ordinance machinery; there was no unlawful consultation in breach of s.15(5) because departmental valuation work formed part of the Secretary's decision‑making (not prohibited consultation); the Secretary's reasons (and subsequent explanations) satisfied any legitimate expectation and were adequate; all applications dismissed.
7 Aug 1997

TSOI CHING MAN v. CHIEF ESTATE SURVEYORS/ACQUISITION, LANDS DEPARTMENT

Citation

TSOI CHING MAN v. CHIEF ESTATE SURVEYORS/ACQUISITION, LANDS DEPARTMENT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2336/1996

No legitimate expectation arose because there was no clear, unambiguous representation to the applicant or the relevant class entitling post-Gazette purchasers to Home Purchase Allowance; internal guidelines were not public and the policy excluding post-Gazette purchasers to prevent speculation was rational; the Department's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore judicial review dismissed.
14 Aug 1985

SIU YUK LIN AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG SAI CHOW

Citation

SIU YUK LIN AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG SAI CHOW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2103/1983

On the evidence the Master found as a fact that promotion to Station Sergeant by 1 April 1983 was essentially certain; excluded overseas education allowance for lack of qualifying evidence; calculated net pre-trial and post-trial lost earnings using found tax rates (8% pre-trial, specific tax calculation for future loss giving $1,443.16 per month tax), adopted a multiplier of 14 to reflect near 10 years full pay plus subsequent pension period, assessed specific heads of loss (pre-trial and post-trial income loss, loss of gratuity at half the commuted amount, loss of principal element of home…