Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tone of the list

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA61/1983

The Tribunal held that the correct valuation date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); the Bwllfa principle applies so the Commissioner and the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence available when the valuation is actually carried out (including post-projection/hindsight evidence); a projection may be disturbed on appeal if hindsight shows the projection was materially erroneous; on the facts the Commissioner's projection was excessive (approx. 35% low) and the Tribunal fixed the agreed rateable values at $67,200 for each of the two 31st-floor tenements and $66,…
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA14/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant valuation date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); the Commissioner must consider all relevant evidence available when he conducts a physical valuation (including rentals during and after the projection period) and the Bwllfa principle permits hindsight evidence to displace an erroneous projection; where a projection is materially excessive it must be corrected notwithstanding concerns about preserving the tone of the list; on the evidence the respondent's projection was excessive and the appealed rateable values were increased to the ag…
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA62/1983

The Tribunal held the correct valuation date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); post‑projection evidence of actual rentals is admissible under the Bwllfa principle and the Commissioner erred in refusing to consider such evidence when valuing in 1982; projections may be reviewed and altered on appeal if the error is excessive; here the projection understated values by c.35% and the Tribunal therefore increased the rateable values to the agreed hindsight figures (31st floor $67,200; others $66,000) and directed amendments to the Valuation List.
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA58/1983

The relevant date for ascertaining the rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals and other facts available after a valuer's projection is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; a projection competently made may nevertheless be revised on appeal if hindsight evidence shows the projection was materially erroneous; the Commissioner's refusal to use post-projection rental evidence was an error of law and the appeals succeed, fixing the rateable values at $67,200 for the two 31st-floor tenements and $66,000 for the other 58 tenements.
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA56/1983

The Tribunal held (1) the correct date for ascertaining rateable value where no date is designated is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); (2) evidence of actual market movements after a valuer's projection is admissible under the Bwllfa principle and a projection, even if reasonable when made, is reviewable and correctable on appeal where the projection proved to be materially erroneous; (3) the Commissioner erred in law by disregarding post-projection rentals and his projection errors were excessive, therefore the agreed hindsight valuations are adopted.
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA35/1983

The relevant date for ascertaining rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977). Evidence of actual rents and market facts that became known after a valuer's earlier projection is admissible and must be used; a Commissioner's projection may be altered on appeal if it is shown to be materially erroneous or excessive despite being reasonable at the time. The tone of the list cannot justify retaining an excessive error. Applying these principles, the Tribunal increased the rateable values to the agreed hindsight figures.
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA26/1983

The Tribunal held that the relevant date for valuation is 1 April 1977; the Commissioner when valuing in 1982 was obliged to consider all relevant evidence available then including actual rentals during and after the projection period (Bwllfa principle); a projection may be reviewed and corrected on appeal where it proves materially erroneous; the tone of the list cannot justify preserving excessive errors; accordingly the Commissioner's projected values were excessive and the Tribunal fixed the rateable values at the agreed hindsight figures.
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA20/1983

The relevant date for ascertaining rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect; when the Commissioner projects valuations to that date, hindsight market evidence (Bwllfa) is admissible and a projection may be set aside on appeal if it is materially erroneous; Section 7 requires valuers to ascertain open market rent at the common date and correctness cannot be subordinated to maintaining the tone of the list where projection errors are excessive.
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA66/1983

The Tribunal held that the correct date for ascertaining the rateable value is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); hindsight evidence of actual rents during and after the projection period is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred as a matter of law by failing to consider actual rental evidence available in 1982 when he made the notional projection, and where a projection is materially erroneous it may be corrected on appeal; accordingly the rateable values of the 60 tenements are increased to the agreed figures.
5 Nov 1983

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA67/1983

The relevant date for valuation is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); post-projection actual rental evidence is admissible and should have been used by the Commissioner; the Commissioner erred in law by not using available post-projection evidence and by adopting an excessively conservative projection; projections can be revised on appeal where errors are excessive; therefore the Tribunal increases the rateable values to the agreed hindsight figures.