Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation date

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2025

KERRYFORD HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. PROFIT VALLEY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 51
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS8000/2022

The review is dismissed because the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion to fix a reserve price reflecting market evidence current at the date of the order rather than an earlier agreed valuation date; the Tribunal properly adopted a 3.4% retail capitalisation rate, applied or refused specific comparable adjustments for valid reasons (including a +5% building quality adjustment to NSS‑1), and there was no material change or error justifying upward revision of the RDV or a stay of sale.
12 Mar 2025

LEUNG YUET KEUNG v. HARBOUR FRONT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1009
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1471/2019

The court exercised its discretion to fix the valuation date as 16 September 2019 (date of presentation of the petition) because fairness required protecting the petitioner from diminution caused by the respondents' repeated improper conduct; the shares are to be valued by a single court-appointed valuer without a minority discount; the petitioner did not prove he suffered the particular financial loss necessary to justify awarding interest from the valuation date rather than from the date of judgment, so interest from the petition date was not ordered.
22 Jul 2024

TO YUNG SING HERMAN v. SZETO CHAK MEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1897
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2741/2016

Although Plaintiff was overall successful in the assessment, he lost key, substantial issues (valuation date and redevelopment basis) that materially increased the length and cost of the assessment; the court may apportion costs for issues lost even where overall success obtained, and on that basis the Order Nisi reducing Plaintiff's costs entitlement to 50% was appropriate and will not be varied; Plaintiff's summons is dismissed and he must pay the costs of the summons.
30 Apr 2024

TO YUNG SING HERMAN v. SZETO CHAK MEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2741/2016

The valuation date for assessing the plaintiff's loss of bargain is the Completion Date (31 May 2016); damages are the market value at that date (HK$57,621,000) less the contract price (HK$50,000,001) totalling HK$7,620,999, with pre-judgment interest at HSBC prime +1% from Completion Date; other claimed heads (increased stamp duty, increased agency commission, costs of Colliers and CBRE reports) are dismissed.
11 Oct 2023

CHU CHUNG MING AND ANOTHER v. LAM WAI DAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2539
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW377/2011

Interest was ordered to run from the date of the Buy Out Order (22 December 2014) to the date of payment (6 December 2022) but at a commercial rate (prime plus 1%) because awarding the judgment rate before the purchase price was finally ascertained is contrary to the penal principle of post-judgment interest; interest is disallowed for the period 7 February to 29 November 2022 for undue delay, while other alleged delay periods were not attributable solely to the Petitioners and do not justify disallowance.
7 May 2021

LI GUOZHU v. NEW CENTURY IATRICAL INV. MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 651
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV174/2018

Leave to appeal refused because the questions raised involved application of established discretionary principles to the facts and did not raise questions of law or public importance; no arguable error in the judge's valuation basis or choice of valuation date (Profinance provides prima facie date), and the judge gave valid reasons; therefore no basis to grant leave and appeal.
28 Aug 2019

MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY ORLOV AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2120
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2753/2017

The court found that both shareholders committed acts of unfairly prejudicial conduct in different respects but that the practical remedy is a buyout. On the evidence the appropriate relief is an order that Roth buy out Orlov's 120,000 shares in Three Towns Capital Limited; the valuation date for that buyout is fixed at 1 January 2018; certain complaints (notably denial/delay of access to documents, exclusion from management, orchestrated disruption of Katla and diversion of an opportunity to purchase the Karelian vessels) establish unfair prejudice while other complaints were rejected; deriv…
6 Jun 2018

VOLLY BEST INVESTMENT LTD v. JOINLAND HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1438/2013

Resale dates in March 2010 represent the proper valuation dates because the resale prices reflected the market value and the vendor did not fail to mitigate; accordingly damages are assessed by reference to the resale prices, Volly Best is entitled to consequential losses for management fees and government rent/rates (Items b and c) but not to agency commission and conveyancing costs (Items d and e) absent proof they were additional, interest at prime plus 1% from date of resale to judgment is awarded, and plaintiff is entitled to three quarters of costs.
5 Feb 2018

DELANEY\'S INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED v. CELTIC CHARM LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 521
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2678/2015

On the established facts the respondents acted unfairly and prejudicially by taking unilateral steps from late January to March 2015 that preferred their and McCawley’s Shenzhen’s interests over the Company and WFOE, closing and appropriating the business without board authority; therefore the petition succeeds and the appropriate remedy is an order that the respondents buy out the petitioner's shares, with the Company valued as at 31 December 2014 on a going concern basis and interest at prime plus 1% from that date.
16 Oct 2017

DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PENNY\'S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

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

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2017

The Court held that 'godown purposes' in the grant denotes uses involving a building (therefore excluding mid‑stream open storage as a natural meaning) and that for the after valuation the correct assumption is that, as at the authorisation date, the reclamation was to be treated as certain to occur so valuation must reflect the market view on that basis (approach b).