Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refund/restitution

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA466/2005

Section 11A requires a two-stage review process and, absent clearly established exceptions, the respondent is entitled to be heard at the first stage; the applicant failed to demonstrate cogent overriding reasons (including the asserted refund and new 2008 appeal) to reopen the Tribunal's 3 November case-management decision selecting a single test appeal, therefore the review application is refused and the original case-management directions remain in force.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA537/1999

The Tribunal interpreted s11A as creating a two-stage review procedure and held that the first-stage decision whether to review should not be made ex parte in ordinary cases; the respondent is prima facie entitled to be heard. Applying case management discretion, the judge found the applicants new arguments (prospect of refunds from increased WACC and a new 2008 appeal) were not cogent reasons to revisit the 3 November decision selecting a single test appeal and staying the others, and therefore refused the application to review and upheld the prior case management order.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA115/2007

The application for review was refused: section 11A requires a two-stage process and prima facie the respondent must be heard at the first stage; the applicant's new factors (possible WACC-driven refunds and a new 2008 appeal) did not supply cogent overriding reasons to revisit the 3 November case management decision selecting a test appeal and maintaining stays, so the original case management order stands.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA767/2002

The application for review was refused because the statutory two‑stage review process requires giving parties an opportunity to be heard at the first stage, and the applicant failed to produce cogent and overriding reasons (such as compelling new evidence) to revisit the Tribunal's earlier case management decision to proceed by a single test appeal and keep other appeals stayed.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA130/2006

The Tribunal held that s11A requires a two-stage review process with an initial decision made within one month and that the respondent is entitled to be heard at that initial stage; no cogent or overriding new facts were shown to justify revisiting the earlier case management decision to proceed by a single test appeal, so the review application was refused and the original case management order upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION