Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Test appeal procedure

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

LDRA821/2003

The Tribunal refused the review: section 11A establishes a two-stage review process and the first-stage decision is a judicial decision requiring, absent clear statutory language or emergency, that interested parties be heard; the applicant's asserted new matters (possible WACC-linked refunds and a new 2008 appeal) were not cogent or overriding reasons to revisit the prior case management decision to select a single test appeal and maintain stays; accordingly the review application is dismissed and the test appeal procedure remains 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

LDRA118/2007

Section 11A requires a two‑stage review process and, absent clear statutory authority or exceptional circumstances, the respondent is entitled to be heard at the first stage; the applicant's new factual assertions (possible refunds from WACC increase and a new 2008 appeal) were not cogent or overriding reasons to revisit the Tribunal's 3 November case management decision to select a single test appeal, therefore the application for review was refused and the original case management order upheld.
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

LDRA364/2002

The application for review was refused because (1) the Tribunal's 3 November case management decision selecting a single test appeal and staying other appeals was a valid exercise of case management discretion; (2) the applicant failed to demonstrate cogent and overriding new factors that would justify revisiting that decision; and (3) the respondent is entitled to be heard at the first-stage review, so the procedural prerequisites for an immediate ex parte reversal were not met.
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

LDRA368/2004

The Tribunal must allow affected parties to be heard on the first-stage decision to conduct a review absent explicit statutory provision to the contrary; and the applicant failed to show cogent overriding reasons (possible refunds or a new appeal) to revisit the Tribunal's prior case-management decision to select a test appeal and keep other appeals stayed, so the application for review is refused and the 3 November case-management decision is confirmed.
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

LDRA508/2001

The review application was refused because the Tribunal construed s11A as requiring a two-stage process with a right to be heard at the first stage, the applicant's new factors did not provide cogent grounds to revisit the November 3 case management decision, agreed stays and alternative remedies (including a High Court action) mitigated financial prejudice, and the test appeal procedure remained the appropriate exercise of the Tribunal's case management discretion.
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

LDRA366/2002

The Tribunal held that under s11A a review is a two‑stage process and the initial decision whether to review is itself a judicial decision normally requiring the respondent to be heard; there were no cogent new factors (the refund argument or the separate 2008 appeal) sufficient to disturb the Tribunal's prior case‑management decision to select a single test appeal and keep other appeals stayed, 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

LDRA543/1999

The application for review is refused: section 11A requires a two‑stage process and parties are prima facie entitled to be heard at the first stage; the applicant's new factual arguments (refund prospects from WACC change and a new 2008 appeal) do not constitute sufficiently cogent reasons to overturn the prior case management decision to select 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.
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

LDRA365/2004

Section 11A requires a two-stage review and, absent clear statutory language or exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal must afford the respondent an opportunity to be heard at the first stage; the applicant failed to show cogent new reasons (refund risk or a new appeal) to disturb the prior case management decision to proceed by a single test appeal, so the review application 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

LDRA823/2003

The application for review is refused because s.11A requires a two‑stage review with parties entitled to be heard at the first stage, no cogent or overriding new facts justified revisiting the November 3 case management decision, the applicant had agreed to stays and could pursue restitution in separate High Court proceedings, and the Tribunal's case management discretion to proceed by a single test appeal is justified and should stand.