Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Land resumption compensation

Legal area

Court

4 Sept 2024

WELL HONOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS OF LANDS DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2221
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2198/2023

On proper construction of the LRO the entitlement to compensation is vested in the former owner or persons with an estate or interest in the land immediately before reversion and is not transmissible to a third party assignee except where the statute expressly permits; accordingly the Applicant (an assignee) had no enforceable right under the LRO and the substantive judicial review claim is dismissed.
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.
3 Nov 2022

TANG KWAI CHEUNG v. YEUNG SZE TING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1287/2020

Clause 35(c) was validly included by the solicitors entrusted by both parties, was not the subject of rectification for mistake, the payment of HK$100,000 after the expiry of the clause did not waive or estop the plaintiff from exercising the unilateral contractual right to rescind, and the plaintiff validly rescinded by letter dated 4 August 2020; consequently the plaintiff must return the deposits with interest and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
15 Jan 2019

BILLTECH LTD AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 3
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2011

Respondent failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the Prohibited Zone had been validly gazetted under reg 14; therefore the Prohibited Zone was not lawfully designated, s.12(c) did not exclude construction of car parking levels in the hypothetical redevelopment, and the BA's GFA discretion under reg 23(3)(b) is not caught by s.12(c); accordingly valuation should assume car parking levels and compensation is fixed at HKD 204,500,000.
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.
19 Jun 2014

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN

Citation

LOK TIN CHOI v. LAI KWAI LIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP315/2012

The court granted vesting orders for the non-resumed lots because the plaintiff, as the sole beneficial successor under Chinese customary succession, was entitled under s45 Trustee Ordinance; the resumed lots reverted to the Government under the Lands Resumption Ordinance so no vesting order could be made but immediately prior to resumption the plaintiff was the sole beneficial owner and is entitled to the assessed compensation; the defendant failed to prove the alleged family agreement and Chinese customary inheritance law does not apply to compensation monies after reversion to the Crown, t…
24 Mar 2014

LAU YU SHING AND ANOTHER v. PHILIP CHAN WING HUNG

Citation

LAU YU SHING AND ANOTHER v. PHILIP CHAN WING HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV35/2011

The Court held that s.68 LPO entitles third parties who have paid or are liable to pay a solicitor's bill to compel delivery and taxation of the bill even if they are not the solicitor's client; the plaintiffs as administrators had locus standi; the defendant's '5th Draft' was not a proper bill and could not be treated as having been delivered for taxation; the lower court's orders (delivery, deeming the Draft Bill acceptable for purposes and permitting a supplemental bill, and directing summary assessment) were correct and the appeal was dismissed.
11 May 2009

WAI HA KAN v. HO TZE LEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

WAI HA KAN v. HO TZE LEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1203/2006

The court found on the evidence that the plaintiff's predecessors had exclusive factual possession with animus possidendi of House No.53 as against the registered owners from 1 May 1976, and that possession continued through resumption on 17 March 2000; therefore the registered owners' title was extinguished and the plaintiff acquired a possessory title and is entitled to the resumption compensation attributable to House No.53.
13 Apr 2007

TANG CHE TAI AND OTHERS v. TANG ON KWAI AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG CHE TAI AND OTHERS v. TANG ON KWAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA331/2002

Court held that mesne profit/rental income used for the 2002 Pai-ji is 'land' under the NTO and governed by Chinese customary law and tong custom requiring unanimous consent; compensation from compulsory acquisition is governed by Hong Kong law and not by s13(1); the 1982 Agreement is unenforceable insofar as it binds an unborn member and was voidable for duress (and effectively avoided), so defendants' counterclaim fails; the 2002 Pai-ji was unlawful and defendants (1st, 3rd and 4th) are jointly liable to repay $201,000 with interest.
16 Jan 2007

SHAM CHI KEUNG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

SHAM CHI KEUNG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/2006

The tribunal's award was set aside because the loss it compensated arose from customers moving out of the K2 district due to resumptions affecting their properties, not from the removal of the applicant's business from the applicant's land as required by s.10(2)(d); therefore there was no requisite causal connection and the award of $322,000 for pre-resumption loss was unsustainable.