Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resumption of land

Legal area

Court

10 Jan 2025

LAM KWOK LUNG v. LANDS DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 207
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1414/2024

Applicant lacked evidence to establish standing and, in any event, all grounds were not reasonably arguable: s.2(2)(g) and s.16AA do not amount to unlawful unfettered discretion when exercised in good faith and subject to review and administrative guidelines; there was no breach of BL35 or BL40; no duty to consider private purchase as an alternative; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed and costs awarded against Applicant.
2 Jun 2021

TANG LAI v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2085/2020

On proper construction of the Compensation Policy, the term "owner"/"owner-occupier" for HPA/SA refers to paper owners (those with conventional title and title deeds) as identified at the freezing survey; a person holding a possessory title acquired by adverse possession does not qualify for HPA/SA though they may be entitled to statutory compensation under the LRO; therefore the Appeals Committee's decision to deny HPA/SA to the applicant was correct and the substantive judicial review is dismissed.
13 Jun 2017

TANG LAI v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TANG YEE SHEE, DECEASED

Citation

TANG LAI v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TANG YEE SHEE, DECEASED
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5042/2014

On the pleadings the court was satisfied the plaintiff had exclusive factual possession and the requisite intention to possess from 1998 for at least 12 years; consequently by operation of ss 7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance the defendant’s paper title was extinguished and the plaintiff held possessory title immediately prior to government resumption, and declaratory relief was appropriately granted despite default.
22 Jul 2009

HONG KONG HOUSING SOCIETY AND ANOTHER v. WONG NAI CHUNG t/a SUN CHUNG FLOWER SHOP

Citation

HONG KONG HOUSING SOCIETY AND ANOTHER v. WONG NAI CHUNG t/a SUN CHUNG FLOWER SHOP
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP880/2009

Section 36(4) must be construed to permit the URA to continue and complete inherited development proposals as if the LDCO had not been repealed; therefore the defendant's contention that the land assembly stage must comply with URAO requirements was incorrect and the proposed appeal lacked a strong likelihood of success; accordingly the stay was refused.
30 Sept 2004

Man Lin Tai v. The Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works

Citation

Man Lin Tai v. The Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRW14/2004

Because the settled compensation sum ($755000) was outside the District Court's jurisdiction at the time the costs were incurred, the High Court scale applies to assessment of remuneration; however, the costs of this application (and previously reserved costs) are to be taxed on the District Court scale because the remuneration claim itself falls within District Court jurisdiction. Specific allowances: draftsman 5 hours at $1,600/hr ($8000) allowed; handling solicitor rate allowed at $4,000/hr; one hour deducted from a 4h40m conference item; total solicitors' profit costs allowed $86851 and d…
8 Jan 2002

BEAUTIGLORY INVESTMENT LTD. v. TANG LOI AND OTHERS

Citation

BEAUTIGLORY INVESTMENT LTD. v. TANG LOI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP531/1989

The court exercised its discretion to reserve costs relating to the present application and prior 1996 steps rather than make an immediate costs order for the defendants; the court permitted the plaintiff to proceed with its new summons for sale subject to the modified time provisions in paragraphs (iii) and (iv), finding that the change of direction, though major, did not automatically justify immediate adverse costs against the plaintiff prior to trial.
6 Apr 2001

FUNCO LTD. v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

FUNCO LTD. v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2169/2000

CPLD's decisions quashed because its April 27, 2000 decision-making process failed to take into account material considerations required by the compensation scheme (notably whether Phase I West Rail should be treated as part of the wider Western Corridor Railway affecting hope value, and whether localised urbanisation potential required at least Zone B classification). The omission rendered the process unfair and flawed such that judicial supervision was justified; matter remitted for reconsideration.
9 Mar 2001

Wong Hoi Nung v. The Secretary for Transport

Citation

Wong Hoi Nung v. The Secretary for Transport
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR1/2000

The Tribunal found on the evidence that the Tenancy Agreement covered Lot No.1978(P), Lot No.1980(RP) and the Government land comprising the resumed area; it fixed unit rent at $3.636 and awarded loss of profit rent of $230,448.96, varying the earlier compensation accordingly.
14 Sept 2000

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG MAN CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND LANDS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL378/2000

The Secretary's recommendation and the Chief Executive in Council's resumption order were lawful: valuation disputes are not amenable to judicial review where a statutory compensation mechanism exists; the Secretary had sufficient material (including independent government consultant valuation and LDC expertise) to be satisfied under s.15(4)(c) and did not breach s.15(5); reasons (including in correspondence and affidavits) were adequate given a prior undertaking to give reasons; accordingly the applications are dismissed.
1 Mar 2000

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH KAI INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, TEXACO ROAD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH KAI INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, TEXACO ROAD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL120/1999

The resumption order was lawful: the subsequent contractor report did not establish that demolition and hence resumption were no longer required at the time of the June 1999 decision; there was no evidence redevelopment potential materially influenced the authorised scheme or the delegate's resumption decision; and the statutory objection procedure, not a separate right to post-authorisation representations, governed procedural fairness, so the application to quash was dismissed.