Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Outline zoning plan

Legal area

Court

27 May 2021

TUNG CHUN CO LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 758
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2019

Applicant failed to establish substantive or procedural legitimate expectations because there was no clear unambiguous representation; TPB’s planning judgments (including selection of vantage points and exclusion of comparator buildings) were within its broad discretion and not irrational; imposition of 120mPD BHR was not manifestly without reasonable foundation and did not breach Basic Law property rights; therefore applicant’s appeal was dismissed and lower court relief (quashing the Rejection and remitting the Representation for reconsideration) and costs rulings were not disturbed.
7 Aug 2020

HONG KONG RESORT CO LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1956
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL645/2017

The Board unlawfully relied on the Unused GFA (an implementation/lease‑related consideration) and thereby took into account an irrelevant consideration and omitted relevant planning factors; it also failed its Tameside duty to ask the right questions and misapplied the undesirable‑precedent concept without adequate factual basis. For these errors the Decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
28 Jun 2018

TUNG CHUN CO LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1447
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL288/2018

Court held TPB erred in law by presenting Practice Note No.3 as guaranteeing an owner's ability to proceed under previously approved GBPs notwithstanding the Building Authority's statutory discretion (Ground 1), unlawfully relied upon the possibility of minor relaxation as a substantive reason (Ground 6), and acted with procedural unfairness because two members absent during oral representations were not shown to have been adequately apprised before deliberation (Ground 7); those errors warranted quashing the Decision and remitting the representation for fresh consideration; all other grounds…
18 Nov 2015

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV31/2015

The Court refused most applications for leave to appeal and affirmed that review of the Town Planning Board's planning judgments is context specific: courts will generally apply restrained review (Wednesbury/Tameside framework) but require that any Board member participating in deliberation be adequately informed of representations; leave was granted only on narrow points (Hysan's proportionality/GPI point and TPB's question on the legal basis for determining NBA dimensions) because those issues raised arguable points of law; other challenges were refused as either factual matters or not rais…
18 Nov 2015

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV28/2015

The Court refused most applications for leave to appeal and dismissed TPB's FAMV17/2015 application; it granted leave only on two narrow issues (Question 7 in TPB FAMV30/2015 concerning dimensions of a non‑building area and Question 2 in Hysan FAMV28/2015 concerning whether proportionality under Basic Law applies), holding that (i) procedural fairness requires participating Board members to be adequately informed of representations but factual findings on adequacy are for trial record, (ii) most challenges raised did not raise important questions of principle sufficient to grant leave, and (i…
29 Jun 2015

LEIGHTON PROPERTY COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

LEIGHTON PROPERTY COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2012

The court refused leave on multiple questions raised by the TPB and Hysan except to grant leave on the specific proportionality question (Question 2 in CACV 232/2012 and Question 1 in CACV 233/2012); it held many issues were not reasonably arguable or were not GPI, applied established public law principles on Tameside duty and procedural fairness to the specific facts, and directed reconsideration by TPB consistent with the court's November 2014 judgment.
21 Nov 2011

TURBO TOP LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

TURBO TOP LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL52/2011

The TPB acted within its statutory powers under the Town Planning Ordinance (including the broad scope afforded by s.4(1) and its proviso) when it rezoned the site to C(1) and imposed a minimum 800 public parking space requirement (subject to minor relaxations); the measures constituted area zoning and preservation of a public asset, not unlawful micro‑management of a specific building, and the challenges on inconsistency, irrelevant considerations, procedural unfairness and discrimination fail.
8 Sept 2008

FINE TOWER ASSOCIATES LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

FINE TOWER ASSOCIATES LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV20/2008

In assessing deprivation under Article 105 the court must consider the factual reality including any reasonable prospect of lease modification and development potential; lawful planning restrictions imposed under the Town Planning Ordinance do not constitute a deprivation where the possibility of modification affects the land's present value, and the discretionary nature of modification does not of itself infringe Article 105.
6 Nov 2007

SMART GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

SMART GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL12/2007

The Board's first reason relied on a factual finding that Sites 2, 3 (and 4 except Site1) 'comprise wooded slopes and river valley' which was inadequately explained, made without sufficient inquiry and was materially mistaken in light of further evidence (site visit); that mistake materially affected the Board's reasoning and tainted the CE in Council's approval; accordingly the decisions of the Board and the CE in Council insofar as they relate to Sites 1-3 are quashed and the objections in respect of Sites 1-3 are remitted to the Board for reconsideration.
27 Jul 2007

FINE TOWER ASSOCIATES LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

FINE TOWER ASSOCIATES LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV356/2006

The Court held the appellant failed to prove that the Draft Outline Zoning Plan denied all economically viable or meaningful use of the lots; the lots remained marketable and usable under the proposed zoning, lease modification under Lands Department policy was a realistic prospect and relevant to the inquiry, and therefore there was no de facto deprivation requiring compensation; the appeal was dismissed and costs ordered nisi for the respondent.