Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Projection of values

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

LDRA14/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant valuation date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); the Commissioner must consider all relevant evidence available when he conducts a physical valuation (including rentals during and after the projection period) and the Bwllfa principle permits hindsight evidence to displace an erroneous projection; where a projection is materially excessive it must be corrected notwithstanding concerns about preserving the tone of the list; on the evidence the respondent's projection was excessive and the appealed rateable values were increased to the ag…
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

LDRA35/1983

The relevant date for ascertaining rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977). Evidence of actual rents and market facts that became known after a valuer's earlier projection is admissible and must be used; a Commissioner's projection may be altered on appeal if it is shown to be materially erroneous or excessive despite being reasonable at the time. The tone of the list cannot justify retaining an excessive error. Applying these principles, the Tribunal increased the rateable values to the agreed hindsight figures.
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

LDRA20/1983

The relevant date for ascertaining rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect; when the Commissioner projects valuations to that date, hindsight market evidence (Bwllfa) is admissible and a projection may be set aside on appeal if it is materially erroneous; Section 7 requires valuers to ascertain open market rent at the common date and correctness cannot be subordinated to maintaining the tone of the list where projection errors are excessive.
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

LDRA69/1983

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 under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred in 1982 by refusing to use post-projection evidence and his projection was excessively low (approx. 35% error); therefore the Tribunal corrected the rateable values to $67,200 for two 31st-floor tenements and $66,000 for the remaining 58 tenements as at 1 April 1977.
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

LDRA23/1983

The relevant date for ascertaining rateable value is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals and market data available after a notional projection is admissible under the Bwllfa principle to determine the correct value as at that date; the Commissioner erred in law by refusing to consider such hindsight evidence and by making an excessively conservative projection; where a projection is materially erroneous the valuation must be corrected despite effects on the tone of the list; accordingly the Tribunal fixed the rateable values at $67,200 for two…

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

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

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

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