Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tone of the list vs correctness

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

LDRA48/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); hindsight evidence of actual rentals during the projection period is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; a projection may be altered on appeal where it is shown to be materially erroneous; the Commissioner erred as a matter of law in failing to use available post-projection rental evidence, and the projection errors were excessive, so the agreed higher values as at 1 April 1977 must be 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

LDRA70/1983

The Tribunal held that the proper date for ascertaining rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; therefore a projection made earlier may be reviewed and altered on appeal if it is materially erroneous; the tone of the list does not justify preserving an excessive error; accordingly the Commissioner's projected valuations were excessive and the Tribunal fixed higher rateable values as agreed by the valuers.
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

LDRA37/1983

The Valuation List relevant date is the date it comes into effect (1 April 1977); where a valuation was projected to that date, the projection is reviewable on appeal and the tribunal may admit and prefer actual rental evidence from during and after the projection period (Bwllfa principle); the tone of the list does not override correcting material errors; therefore the Commissioner's failure to use available post‑projection rental evidence was an error of law and the valuations were adjusted accordingly.
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

LDRA17/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant valuation date was 1 April 1977 and that when valuing at that date the valuer (and the Commissioner when acting later) must consider all relevant evidence available including actual rentals occurring during and after the projection period; the Commissioner erred as a matter of law in refusing to consider post-projection evidence, and his projection understated true values by about 35%, an excessive error warranting correction; consequently the Tribunal set rateable values at the agreed hindsight figures: $67,200 for two 31st-floor tenements and $66,000 for the o…
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

LDRA29/1983

The Tribunal held that the relevant date for valuation is when the Valuation List comes into force (1 April 1977); post‑projection actual rental evidence is admissible under the Bwllfa principle and a projection may be revised on appeal if it is materially erroneous; the Commissioner erred in failing to use available post‑projection evidence and the agreed hindsight valuations must replace his projections.
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

LDRA34/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible under the Bwllfa principle and K Shoe Shops; the Commissioner erred in 1982 by refusing to consider post-projection rental evidence and by making an excessively conservative projection; the projection error (about 35%) was excessive and required correction; therefore the appeals succeed and the agreed hindsight valuations as at 1 April 1977 are adopted (2 tenements at $67,200 and 58 tenements at $66,000) and the Valuat…
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

LDRA41/1983

Held that the correct relevant date is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); the Commissioner erred as a matter of law in refusing to take into account actual rental evidence after the date of projection because hindsight evidence is admissible to correct erroneous projections; projections may be upheld only if not excessive; on the evidence the Commissioner's projection was excessively low and the Tribunal fixed rateable values at agreed hindsight figures (31st-floor units $67,200 each; other units $66,000 each) and ordered amendment of the Valuation List effective 1…
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

LDRA55/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of rentals occurring after the date a projection was made is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred as a matter of law in refusing to take into account post-projection rentals available when he physically carried out valuations in 1982; the projection errors were excessive (approx. 35%) and the agreed values on hindsight evidence should be adopted (2 units at $67,200; 58 units at $66,000).
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

LDRA15/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible (Bwllfa principle); the Commissioner's projection in this case was legally erroneous and excessively low (approx. 35% error) and therefore must be corrected; appeals were upheld and rateable values increased accordingly; the tone of the list cannot justify preserving materially incorrect valuations.
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

LDRA24/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); post-projection actual rental evidence is admissible under the Bwllfa principle and the Commissioner erred in refusing to consider rentals after the projection date; because the projection error (approx. 35%) was excessive, the Tribunal corrected the rateable values to the agreed hindsight figures rather than preserving the Commissioner's tone-preserving projections.