Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rateable value assessment

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2011

BEST ORIGIN LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

BEST ORIGIN LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV67/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an appeal as of right under s22(1)(a): the rating assessment was not a liquidated claim nor clearly quantifiable at $1,000,000 or more per Appeal Committee guidance (China Field, Happy Dragon); discretionary leave under s22(1)(b) and the rare 'or otherwise' basis were not satisfied because the issues had been considered by the Court of Final Appeal in Agrila and misapplication of precedent does not alone justify leave. The application was dismissed with costs.
9 Aug 2007

SUNBEAM INVESTMENT LTD v. MANNITOP INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

SUNBEAM INVESTMENT LTD v. MANNITOP INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1985/2006

Where an injunction will affect any part of an immovable property, the relevant rateable value (or annual rent/annual value) for jurisdictional purposes is the rateable value of the entirety of that immovable property (the whole unit); applying that principle, the defendant's unit had a rateable value of HK$1,186,800 which exceeds the District Court cap of HK$240,000, therefore the injunctive relief to remove unauthorised works on the roof garden was outside District Court jurisdiction; the defendant's strike out application under s.41(2) was dismissed because there was no basis to conclude t…
15 Oct 2003

URBAN PARKING LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION

Citation

URBAN PARKING LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA378/2002

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under Order 62, Rule 3(2) to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event because the Appellant's expert adopted comparables contrary to valuation norms, leading to unnecessary hearing time and procedural inefficiency; accordingly the order nisi for costs was varied to no order as to costs and no order was made for the costs of the costs application.
18 Apr 1986

PONG HAY LAM AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

PONG HAY LAM AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA73/1985

Tribunal accepted comparables-based valuation method but adjusted for locality and nuisance and recognized limited floor differentiation; for the 1977 relevant assessment the Tribunal fixed letting value at HK$600/month (rateable value HK$7,200) for 1/F and 2/F flats and ordered amendment of the 1977 list; for the 1984 list the Tribunal adopted a unit rate of about HK$54/sq.m with floor-specific adjustments, fixed rateable values for the five flats (HK$22,800; HK$22,800; HK$24,300; HK$24,300; HK$24,900 respectively) and ordered amendments and refunds accordingly.
7 Apr 1986

WONG TAK WOON v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION

Citation

WONG TAK WOON v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA120/1984

Tribunal rejected the Commissioners unsupported 50% deduction and emphasised use of pre‑war comparables and a uniform saleable area measurement; having found repair costs high and redevelopment likelihood made full remediation uneconomical, the Tribunal concluded a reasonable hypothetical landlord would only undertake minimal repairs and fixed the rateable value at $12,000 (equivalent to $1,000/month) as at the designated date.
6 Sept 1985

LAT KIT LAU MUTUAL AID COMMITTEE v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION

Citation

LAT KIT LAU MUTUAL AID COMMITTEE v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA10/1984

Where demand for the premises is effectively restricted to the actual tenants, the actual rents paid are the best evidence of market (rateable) value; comparable storage lettings relied on by the Commissioner were insufficiently comparable or showed special value to adjoining occupiers; the Crown head lease terms are to be ignored; accordingly the Tribunal reduced the rateable values to the rents-reflective levels it determined.
20 Mar 1985

FUNG LING YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

FUNG LING YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING & VALUATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA31/1984

The Tribunal found the primary use of the premises was domestic: intermittent commercial activities were secondary to long‑standing residential occupation; inspections and the Commissioner’s certificate supported domestic classification; endorsements of permitted rent or rateable value reflect hypothetical market/business potential and are not determinative of actual user. Accordingly the premises fall within Part I and the Commissioner’s certificate is upheld.
15 Oct 1984

LAI KIT LAU MUTUAL AID COMMITTEE v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

LAI KIT LAU MUTUAL AID COMMITTEE v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA9/1984

The Tribunal held that valuation is twofold: apply the statutory hypothetical tenancy to ascertain market rent but subject that hypothetical tenancy to any lawful ownership/user restrictions in the Crown lease; then value the physical tenement by its actual subsisting mode or character of occupation (community use as play area/committee room). On the facts the tenement was lawfully restricted to community use and the appellant was effectively the only hypothetical tenant, so the actual concessional rent of $4,560 pa constituted the best evidence of market rent; appeal allowed and rateable val…