Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review procedure under s11a

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

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

LDRA467/2005

The Tribunal held that the preliminary decision whether to exercise s11A review is a judicial decision ordinarily requiring that all parties be heard; the applicant's new factors (possible refunds due to WACC changes and a new 2008 appeal) were insufficiently cogent to disturb the existing case management decision of 3 November 2008 to select a single test appeal and stay others, and therefore the application for review was refused.
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

LDRA366/2004

The Tribunal held that the first-stage decision whether to permit a review is a judicial decision requiring, prima facie, that the respondent be afforded an opportunity to be heard; there were no sufficiently cogent new factors to disturb the Tribunal's 3 November 2008 case management order selecting a single test appeal and staying other appeals, and therefore the application for review was refused.
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

LDRA506/2001

Section 11A requires a two‑stage review and the first‑stage decision granting or refusing review is a judicial decision requiring, absent exceptional statutory words, opportunity for the other party to be heard; no cogent new reason was shown to revisit the 3 November 2008 case management decision, so the application for review is refused and the test‑appeal procedure and existing stays remain in place.
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

LDGA618/2003

The application for review of the 3 November 2008 case management decision is refused: the Tribunal holds that the first‑stage decision under s11A must ordinarily afford the other party an opportunity to be heard, the applicant's new factors (possible refunds from WACC change and a new 2008 appeal) do not constitute cogent reasons to displace the prior decision selecting a single test appeal and maintaining stays, and therefore the original case management decision is confirmed.

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