Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation of property

Legal area

Court

18 May 2023

RISE TALL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. YEUK MAN CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2399/2019

Paragraph 1(a) was dismissed because the proposed evidence did not constitute recognised expert evidence governed by recognised standards and would not be helpful; the master's split-trial order was set aside because the defendant demonstrated that hiving off quantum was not justified as an exception to the general rule of single trial given the narrow, self-contained scope of valuation evidence and the risks of duplication, delay and prejudice; the fresh expert report was excluded for failure to show special grounds and because it could have been obtained earlier.
26 Apr 2023

WENG JENNY WAI YUM v. WENG WAI CHONG RICHARD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1244
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5/2021

The court, exercising jurisdiction under Order 85 r 2, ordered the sale of the Property at market price as supported by the independent valuations; a dissent by one or more administrators does not permit them to frustrate a sale that reflects market value; the 1st–3rd defendants must make statutory declarations as to possession or custody of the title deeds; costs and sale expenses are to be paid out of the deceased's estate.
12 Jul 2018

LI LAP WAI v. LEE TIN CHOI also known as LI TIN CHOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2287/2014

The appeal was dismissed because, although the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction, he has demonstrated substantial assets in Hong Kong (including land valued at HK$1.2 million) and a real chance of success; the 1st defendant delayed unreasonably in pursuing security for costs which suggested a tactical use of the application to delay proceedings; there was no prejudice from admitting the further valuation evidence; on balance the court exercised its discretion against ordering security for costs and made specified costs orders.
5 Oct 2016

TAI FAT DEVELOPMENT (HOLDING) CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLD KING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Citation

TAI FAT DEVELOPMENT (HOLDING) CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLD KING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV22/2014

The Court held that the central issue was the proprietary status of the 13 parking spaces and that the unchallenged valuation evidence showed their value exceeded $1,000,000; accordingly an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal lies as of right under the pre-repeal s22(1)(a); leave to appeal was granted conditionally subject to security.
27 Nov 2015

ANLING LTD AND OTHERS v. ANLING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ANLING LTD AND OTHERS v. ANLING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS1000/2015

The tribunal held it had statutory and inherent case management power under the RHC to limit the number of expert witnesses and to direct appointment of a single joint expert per discipline per side; applying that power to the circumstances (many respondent groups, overlapping valuation issues, risk of undue delay and costs), the tribunal directed that no more than one expert witness be called by each side in the disciplines of valuation, building condition and structural assessment and gave detailed directions for selection, nomination and appointment procedures.
8 Jun 2011

LEE SIU CHING v. TSEUNG SO CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SIU CHING v. TSEUNG SO CHING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP568/2008

The court accepted the plaintiff's expert valuation and methodology, fixed market value at 31 December 2007 at $6,930,000, awarded the difference of $700,000 as damages plus agreed conveyancing costs of $40,700, and ordered interest at judgment rate from 1 January 2008.
11 Apr 2011

LAM MEE KING v. WONG KUO SUN JOHN

Citation

LAM MEE KING v. WONG KUO SUN JOHN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2408/2009

Medical expert evidence on the deceased's capacity is relevant and necessary for trial determination of capacity and therefore admissible; valuation evidence is relevant to the issue of the deceased's intention to sell the whole or part of the property and therefore admissible provided the joint valuation is prepared on the correct basis (without vacant possession); the Master's order should be upheld with those qualifications and directions for compliance.
12 Nov 2002

HUNG, LOURENCO ROSE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

Citation

HUNG, LOURENCO ROSE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDHA8/2002

The Tribunal accepted the average of the parties' adjusted unit rates derived from the closest-in-time common comparables (May–August 2002) as the most reliable measure and determined the prevailing market value of the Premises as at the date of judgment to be $449,000, because the parties' valuations were close and within an acceptable margin of difference between qualified valuers.
20 Dec 2001

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS

Citation

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1027/2000

Court held defendant solicitors were negligent and that the proper measure of damages for loss of the old flats is the value indicated by the benefits contracted for in the option/swap agreements (purchase price plus contractual allowances and payments) assessed as at the relevant date (1994); damages to include contractual rental allowances (treated as two years' entitlement), moving and roof allowances, stamp duty actually paid, reasonable interest at HSBC prime +2%, indemnity for amounts payable to plaintiff and reasonable defendants' own solicitor costs on a common fund basis, with credit…
31 Oct 2001

CH\'NG POH v. CHINA EVERBRIGHT LTD.

Citation

CH\'NG POH v. CHINA EVERBRIGHT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA427/1998

On an objective assessment of the minutes, witness evidence and subsequent conduct the court found no concluded binding oral agreement on 5 March 1994; the board resolution at most authorised an offer/option and did not create legal relations binding the company to sell; accordingly the plaintiff's claim fails and is dismissed; further, had an agreement existed it would have been caught by s.163 Companies Ordinance and been unenforceable.