Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Projection of valuations and hindsight evidence

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA15/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible (Bwllfa principle); the Commissioner's projection in this case was legally erroneous and excessively low (approx. 35% error) and therefore must be corrected; appeals were upheld and rateable values increased accordingly; the tone of the list cannot justify preserving materially incorrect valuations.
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA60/1983

The Tribunal held that the correct date for ascertaining rateable values where no date is designated is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals during and after the projected period is admissible (Bwllfa principle as applied in K Shoe Shops) and the Commissioner erred in 1982 by refusing to use rentals known by then; the Commissioner's projection understated true value by an excessive margin (around 35%) and the appeals were allowed with rateable values fixed at $67,200 for two 31st-floor tenements and $66,000 for the remaining 58 tenements.