Gainfield Investment Ltd and Others v. Legend Time Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of LDCS 16000/2014 on BabelCite. This LDCS judgment was delivered on 17 October 2016.

1. On page 50, paragraph 141, the EUV of Garages 2A & 2B should be “$58,940,000” and the total EUV should be “$532,210,000”;

Cites 1 case

Case No.LDCS 16000/2014
Court
LDCS
Date17 Oct 2016
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

LDCS 16000/2014

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

LAND COMPULSORY SALE MAIN APPLICATION

NO. LDCS 16000 OF 2014

__________________

BETWEEN GAINFIELD INVESTMENT LIMITED
(旺發投資有限公司)
1st Applicant
  SUCCESS SHEEN LIMITED
(成輝有限公司)
2nd Applicant
  HARVEST VIEW LIMITED
(盈景有限公司)
3rd Applicant
  and  
  LEGEND TIME LIMITED
(亨利達有限公司)
1st Respondent
  YEUNG YEUK CHUEN (楊若全), the Executor of the Will of CHAN YUET SEE (陳悅施), deceased 2nd Respondent
  WONG YAU TIN (黃有鈿) 3rd Respondent
  LINK EMPIRE COMPANY LIMITED
(領霸有限公司)
4th Respondent
(Discontinued)
  CHI WAI WONG (王子威) also known as WONG TZE WAI (王子威) also known as WONG CHI WAI KENNETH and YUEN FUN WONG (王婉芬) also known as YUEN FUN WONG LIU, the Administrators of the Estate of HIM WONG (王謙), deceased 5th Respondent
(Discontinued)
  LAM YI LAI (林依麗), CHAU CHUN LUNG (周竣隆), CHAU KAI LUNG (周棨隆) and ALL occupiers of 4th Floor, No 2B Tak Shing Street, Kowloon 6th Respondent

__________________

Before: Deputy Judge Tracy CHAN, Presiding Officer of theLands Tribunal and Mr Lawrence PANG, Member of the Lands Tribunal
Dates of Trial: 20 - 24, 27 - 28Juneand 9 September 2016
Date of Inspection: 21 June 2016
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2016
Date of Corrigendum: 25 October 2016

__________________

CORRIGENDUM

__________________

1.On page 50, paragraph 141, the EUV of Garages 2A & 2B should be “$58,940,000” and the total EUV should be “$532,210,000”;

2.On page 51, paragraph 142, the pro rata of Total EUV of R1, R2, R3 and R6 should be 1.6685%, 1.9165%, 1.7286% and 2.2679% respectively;

3.On page 75, paragraph 210, the amount $944,000,000 should be $941,000,000.

4.On page 76, paragraph 210, $113,500/sq m should be $113,140/sq m.

5.On page 78, paragraph 217, the RDV as determined by the Tribunal at Appendix 3 should be $941,000,000;

Apportioned RDV attributable to R1 should be:

$8,880,000/$532,210,000 x $941,000,000 = $15,700,720

(which is higher than the latest offer by 4.07%)

Apportioned RDV attributable to R2 should be:

$10,200,000/$532,210,000 x $941,000,000 = $18,034,610

(which is higher than the latest offer by 7.46%)

Apportioned RDV attributable to R3:

$9,200,000/$532,210,000 x $941,000,000 = $16,266,511

(which is lower than the latest offer by 2.51%)

6.On page 90, paragraph 252, sub-paragraph (3), the reserve price should be $941,000,000;

7.Appendix 1, the amount of Garages should be “$58,940,000” and the Total EUV should be “$532,210,000”;

8.Appendix 3 be amended as Bold and Italic as follow:-

  KONG Wai-man Cathy
  Clerk to Member Lawrence PANG

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under LDCS 16000/2014