Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Marriage value

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2024

LUCK MOST LTD AND OTHERS v. GOOD MOVEMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1156
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP288/2023

Leave to appeal was granted solely on the question whether the Tribunal can take marriage/hope value into account when fixing the reserve price because that is an unsettled question of general public importance requiring determination by the Court of Appeal; leave was refused on remaining questions because there was no evidential basis that the reserve price would necessarily become the sale price (speculation) and no reasonable prospect of success on the challenge to the Judge's case management expunging expert reports.
14 Nov 2023

CENTURY TREASURE LTD AND ANOTHER v. OR PUI KWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1286
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP330/2023

Schedule 2 §2(a) unambiguously requires the reserve price to take into account the redevelopment potential of the subject lot "on its own"; the legislative history confirms the provision was intended to exclude enhancement arising from adjoining majority‑owned lots. The reserve price is a minimum and the market/auction is the mechanism to reflect any hope or marriage value; absent evidence of probable speculators or special purchasers, marriage/hope value should not be included. Therefore leave to appeal was refused.
6 Aug 2018

SWIFT CHINA LTD v. HUI HON CHU

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 60
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS6000/2017

The merged site defence is obviously unsustainable and bound to fail because the Ordinance and its Schedule require the Tribunal to assess reserve price on the subject lot 'on its own' and the Tribunal has no power to treat adjoining lots not before it as part of the subject for valuation or to compel their sale; therefore the pleaded paragraphs advancing a merged site valuation disclose no reasonable defence and must be struck out.
15 Mar 2018

FIRST MATE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GEE WING CHUNG, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LIU WAI YAN ALSO KNOWN AS BO FONG LIU GEE, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 16
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS8000/2016

The Tribunal refused leave: Paragraph 2 Schedule 2 confines reserve price to the lot's redevelopment potential 'on its own' and excludes marriage value/Clay Factor as a basis to set the statutory reserve price at the leave stage; Fully H K Investments is binding and the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice under s.11AA(6).
19 Jan 2018

FIRST MATE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GEE WING CHUNG, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LIU WAI YAN ALSO KNOWN AS BO FONG LIU GEE, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 4
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS8000/2016

The Tribunal dismissed leave to adduce a supplemental valuation report on marriage value because Schedule 2 Paragraph 2 of the Ordinance and related statutory provisions require the reserve price to reflect the redevelopment potential of the lot on its own; marriage value derived from adjoining lots not subject to the application must be excluded. The Tribunal granted a 14-day extension to the 2nd respondent to file and serve a rebuttal valuation report and made specific costs orders.
26 Oct 1999

KWOK KA v. MAK SHIU HIN AND OTHERS

Citation

KWOK KA v. MAK SHIU HIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3262/1997

The court rejected the plaintiff's $12,000,000 redevelopment valuation because the expert's quantification of the crucial variable — the volition of the owner of the adjoining key property (no.23) and time to achieve unification — was speculative and unrealistic; the court accepted the existing‑use valuation of $9,000,000 and awarded damages for loss of bargain of $620,000, plus return of deposit and legal costs, with interest at the judgment rate.
4 Feb 1997

MILLION-ADD DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

MILLION-ADD DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR3/1994

Tribunal pierced the corporate veil given common control, valued the five lots as an amalgamated Class A site on a hypothetical no-resumption basis including likely grant of bonus plot ratio and without requirement for a service lane; held Section 12(c) exclusion did not bar taking Building Authority discretions into account; adopted residual valuation assumptions (ground shops HKD22,000/psm; flats HKD16,500/psm; developers profit 20%; fees 6%; interest 11.5%; construction cost HKD3,750/psm) and awarded compensation of HKD19,200,000.

Hong Kong Case Law

LUCK MOST LTD AND OTHERS v. GOOD MOVEMENT LTD

CENTURY TREASURE LTD AND ANOTHER v. OR PUI KWAN AND OTHERS

SWIFT CHINA LTD v. HUI HON CHU

FIRST MATE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GEE WING CHUNG, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LIU WAI YAN ALSO KNOWN AS BO FONG LIU GEE, DECEASED AND OTHERS

FIRST MATE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GEE WING CHUNG, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LIU WAI YAN ALSO KNOWN AS BO FONG LIU GEE, DECEASED AND OTHERS

KWOK KA v. MAK SHIU HIN AND OTHERS

MILLION-ADD DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT