Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Market value

Legal area

Court

31 Jan 2024

KEENRICH TRADING LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 11
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2022

The Tribunal preferred Ms Ng's more conservative comparable adjustments in combination with the Tribunal's own location and adjustment determinations, adopted multiplication of adjustments, accepted a unit rate of HK$255,000 per sq m based on weighting of comparables (with emphasis on the closest and most proximate transaction), deducted HK$10,000 for reinstatement of an unauthorised cockloft and determined market value as 56.49 sq m × HK$255,000 − HK$10,000 = HK$14,394,950 (rounded and awarded as HK$14,400,000).
20 Feb 2023

ALLIANCE DEVELOP LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 12
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2020

Tribunal applied the statutory market value test under s12(d), rejected adoption of alternative valuation definitions, analysed and selected appropriate comparables, applied multiplicative adjustments for time, location, frontage, headroom and layout, excluded unsuitable comparables, derived an adjusted unit rate and assessed the market value of the Property at $12,000,000 as at 6 December 2019.
6 Nov 2019

LAM KIN CHING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 64
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2018

Tribunal accepted most comparables advanced by the Respondent, rejected most of the Applicants' comparables except the common comparable, adopted a 1/6 rate for open yard, applied size and frontage adjustments (2.5% per 10 m2 for first 100 m2 then 1% per 10 m2 thereafter), adopted a headroom adjustment of 4% per metre, weighted the common comparable double, derived an adjusted unit rate of HK$218,895 per m2 and applied it to the agreed saleable area 152.78 m2 to determine market value of HK$33,443,000; Respondent ordered to pay that sum as compensation.
31 Oct 2019

SOUTH CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. and CHUNG KI TO (AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHUNG KOON KOW, DECEASED) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 61
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS2000/2016

The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success because the tribunal properly concluded the putative comparators did not reflect market value and no expert evidence or workable alternative valuation methodology was produced to support the challenge; accordingly leave to appeal is refused and costs ordered.
21 Aug 2015

ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR4/2013

The Tribunal accepted market value as at 2 June 2012 on a vacant possession basis, rejected numerous comparables as unreliable due to excessive or inappropriate adjustments, accepted five comparables with reasoned adjustments, calculated an average adjusted unit rate of $1,259,399/sq m and determined the market value of the Property (27.8 sq m) at $35,000,000; consequential claims for interest, professional fees and costs were adjourned.
8 Aug 2014

BRIGHT DRAGON PROPERTIES LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

BRIGHT DRAGON PROPERTIES LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR3/2007

Court found the enclosure at the Portion fell within the Building and did not affect the structure, thus was exempt under Buildings Ordinance s.41(3); the applicant was entitled to compensation for its right to use the Portion and the Portion should be valued on its best use as shop area at 7.94 sq m x $263,195/sq m = $2,090,000; for the Upper Floors the tribunal accepted the respondent expert's comparables analysis with adjustments, discarded certain outlier comparables, and fixed an adjusted unit rate of $40,539/sq m giving value of $24,445,000; the tribunal rejected the applicant expert's…
21 Sept 2012

CHAN WAH CHUEN WILLIAM v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

Citation

CHAN WAH CHUEN WILLIAM v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDHA2/2012

The Lands Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction under the Lands Tribunal Ordinance and the Schedule to the Housing Ordinance is limited to appeals against the Director's assessment of prevailing market value; an appeal challenging the initial market value recorded at the time of assignment is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction and therefore the Notice of Appeal discloses no reasonable ground and is struck out; transfer to the CFI is refused because the appellant's cause was insufficiently pleaded to justify transfer.
9 Mar 2012

SIU SAU KUEN v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

SIU SAU KUEN v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR1/2010

Compensation must be the open market value at the date of resumption (15 October 2005) under s12(d) Cap 124; applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities any development value or suitable comparables to support residual or premium‑ratio enhancements, so the Tribunal applied direct comparison method to local comparables and awarded HKD 4,710,000.
14 Jul 2008

JOY TAKE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

JOY TAKE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR8/2006

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found that absent the resumption the two owner groups would have cooperated to redevelop the entire site jointly; therefore compensation must be assessed on the market redevelopment value of the whole site. The Tribunal evaluated competing expert residual valuations, adopted a mix of their assumptions (adopted Mr Lai's site area and many GFA figures, adopted adjusted unit rates of approximately $47,700/m2 for shops and $39,100/m2 for flats, accepted marketing deduction of 1%, deferment rate 7%, adopted Mr Mo's construction cost methodology with adj…
4 Sept 1998

KONG MOU HOLDINGS LTD. v. GOLDCONE PROPERTIES LTD.

Citation

KONG MOU HOLDINGS LTD. v. GOLDCONE PROPERTIES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14171/1997

Master found the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to market the property, the accepted price of HK$36,000,000 reflected the market at 13 January 1998 on the balance of probabilities, the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff unreasonably rushed the resale or sold below market, and damages were assessed as the contractual shortfall plus resale expenses; interest at 10.5% p.a. applied to date of judgment then judgment rate thereafter.