BabelCite

Woo Lau Kwong and Another v. Director of Lands

Read the full judgment text of CACV 58/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 July 1996.

1. On 29 March 1996 a notice of appeal was lodged in this court appealing against a judgment of the Lands Tribunal given on 11 March 1996 whereby a sum of $5.15m was awarded in relation to the resumption of premises owned by the appellants. The premises were the Ground Floor shop situated at No. 42 Pak Tai Street, Kowloon which had been resumed by the Crown on 3 October 1992. The resumption was part of the Housing Society's Urban Improvement Scheme for the Ma Tau Wai area. The Ground Floor shop

Case No.CACV 58/1996
Court
Court of Appeal
Date26 Jul 1996
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000058/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 58
(Civil)

BETWEEN
WOO LAU KWONG 1st Applicant
(1st Appellant)
WU CHI KIN 2nd Applicant
(2nd Appellant)
AND
DIRECTOR OF LANDS Respondent
(Respondent)

--------------------------------

Coram: Hon Litton, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court

Date of hearing: 26 July 1996

Date of judgment: 26 July 1996

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Litton, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 29 March 1996 a notice of appeal was lodged in this court appealing against a judgment of the Lands Tribunal given on 11 March 1996 whereby a sum of $5.15m was awarded in relation to the resumption of premises owned by the appellants. The premises were the Ground Floor shop situated at No. 42 Pak Tai Street, Kowloon which had been resumed by the Crown on 3 October 1992. The resumption was part of the Housing Society's Urban Improvement Scheme for the Ma Tau Wai area. The Ground Floor shop measured 505 sq. ft. and there was also a yard measuring 236 sq. ft. and a cockloft of 183 sq. ft.

2. The tribunal entertained expert evidence in relation to the open market value of the premises with vacant possession. After careful evaluation of the evidence they came to the view that the open market value of the premises in question was $5.15m.

3. The jurisdiction of this court on appeal is defined by section 11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance, Cap 17 which as relevant reads:

"any party to proceedings before the Tribunal may appeal to the Court of Appeal against a determination or order of the Tribunal on the ground that such determination or order is erroneous in point of law."

4. No point of law has been stated in the Notice of Appeal. Having read the judgment of the tribunal we have been unable to detect any error in point of law. In these circumstances the motion of the respondent to have the appeal struck out must be acceded to and we so order.

5. The notice of appeal is struck out and the appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

(Henry Litton) (B. Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice-President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr Simon K.C. Lam (Attorney General's Chambers) for the Respondent/Respondent

Applicants (Appellants) absent