Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation comparables and adjustments

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2015

CHEERMARK INVESTMENT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHEERMARK INVESTMENT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR2/2013

The Tribunal construed the lease in its historical statutory context (notably the 1903 Public Health and Buildings Ordinance) and held that 'dwelling houses' subsumed shop use for ground floors; alternatively, prolonged, open, notorious non-enforcement and occupation permits demonstrated Crown abandonment of the restrictive covenant so shop use was to be recognized in compensation; the applicant failed to prove adverse possessory title to the Roof and so no separate compensation for the Roof; redevelopment potential was not established on the balance of probabilities; valuations were conducte…
19 May 2015

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP225/2015

Leave was granted only in part: Applicant given leave to rely on Ground 5 (Additional Ground 2) and Respondent given leave on Grounds 3, 6 and 10; all other grounds refused because they raised valuation issues rather than errors of law or because amended grounds required first-stage consideration by the Lands Tribunal; Applicant directed to apply to the Tribunal within 7 days on amended Grounds 9 and 14; costs ordered as costs in the cause.
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

LDRA73/1983

The relevant valuation date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); where the Commissioner projects valuations from an earlier date, the tribunal may consider hindsight evidence of actual rentals and alter the projection if the projection is materially erroneous; the Commissioner's failure to take into account post-projection rental evidence was a legal error and the appeals succeed with rateable values fixed at the agreed April 1, 1977 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

LDRA39/1983

The Tribunal held the correct date for ascertaining rateable value is the date the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); hindsight evidence of actual rentals during and after the projection period is admissible under the Bwllfa principle; the Commissioner erred as a matter of law by failing to use available post-projection rental evidence and by making an unreasonable conservative projection; where such a projection is materially erroneous it may be corrected on appeal and the Tribunal set the rateable values 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

LDRA53/1983

The Tribunal held the relevant date is when the Valuation List comes into effect (1 April 1977); valuers performing valuations after that date must take into account all relevant evidence available (including rents occurring during and after the projection period) under the Bwllfa principle; a Commissioner's projection is reviewable and may be altered on appeal where the projection is materially erroneous; on the facts the Commissioner's projection was excessively low (approx. 35% error) and the agreed hindsight valuations as at 1 April 1977 should be adopted.
25 Mar 1983

PFIZER CORPORATION v. THE HONG KONG LAND CO LTD

Citation

PFIZER CORPORATION v. THE HONG KONG LAND CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA8/1982

The Tribunal held that 'disregarding the effect of this Ordinance' in s.115 means the Tribunal must not take into account any inflationary or deflationary effect on rents caused by the operation of Cap.7 and must instead assess the fair market rent by reference to the real current market at the date of the hearing using proper comparables and adjustments, leading to an assessed F.M.R. of $34,000 per month exclusive and grant of a two‑year tenancy from 11 March 1983 with rent payable from 1 July 1982.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHEERMARK INVESTMENT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

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

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

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

PFIZER CORPORATION v. THE HONG KONG LAND CO LTD