Read the full judgment text of CAMP 288/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 May 2020 before Kwan VP and Yuen JA.
Land law – compulsory sale for redevelopment – Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (Cap 545) – Lands Tribunal Ordinance (Cap 17) – leave to appeal – section 11(2) and section 11AA(6) – reasonable prospect of success – majority owner holding more than 80% of undivided shares in five lots in Hung Hom Marine Lot No. 1 and the five buildings thereon – four rounds of offers to minority owners – pre-trial Settlement Prices paid to R16, R17 and R19 disposing of High Court specific performance actions – Tribunal's finding that Settlement Prices were not a true reflection of market value – whether the majority owner had taken reasonable steps to acquire remaining undivided shares on terms that are 'fair and reasonable' within section 4(2)(b) – whether Tribunal erred in failing to treat Settlement Prices as a comparison figure – whether Tribunal erred in not adopting a broad-brush approach to assessing redevelopment potential under §2(a) of Schedule 2 for the purpose of setting the reserve price – whether merged sites/marriage value should be considered – application of Capital Well Ltd v Bond Star Development Ltd (2005) 8 HKCFAR 578 and Good Faith Properties Ltd v Cibean Development Co Ltd [2014] 5 HKLRD 534 – whether challenge to s.4(2)(b) requirement became academic after the Lots were sold at public auction at the reserve price set by the Tribunal, citing Ainsbury v Millington [1987] 1 WLR 379 – whether findings of fact unsupported by evidence may be challenged as errors of law, citing Tam Yuk Ha v Chiu Chuk Fan [2010] 2 HKLRD 1168 – leave to appeal refused on all grounds – contention regarding merged sites/marriage value not raised below and contrary to how proceedings were conducted, see Day Bright Development Ltd v Choi Pak Ling [2014] 4 HKC 364, First Kind Ltd v Liu Keng Chor [2016] 3 HKLRD 39, First Mate Development Ltd v Gee Wing Chung, CAMP 37/2018 – order that no oral hearing inter partes under Order 59 rule 2A(7) – costs of the application to follow the event – summary assessment of costs fixed at $201,079.80 (down from claimed $262,679.80) – orders nisi to become absolute if no application for variation within 14 days.
Legal issues: Whether grounds 1 and 2 of the intended appeal have reasonable prospects of success — Tribunal's treatment of Settlement Prices and alleged unfairness under s.4(2)(b) of Cap 545 · Whether grounds 3 to 5 of the intended appeal have reasonable prospect of success — broad-brush approach to assessing redevelopment potential and setting the reserve price under Schedule 2 of Cap 545 · Whether R5 could raise a new contention on appeal regarding merged sites/marriage value not argued below
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal refused. The 5th respondent's (Harper Property Limited) intended appeal is not permitted to proceed.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case