Tai Chung Property Ltd v. Chen Lan Sum Irene
Read the full judgment text of LDCS 4000/2023 on BabelCite. This LDCS judgment was delivered on 28 July 2025.
1. This is an application for a compulsory sale order (“the Application”) under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, Cap 545 (“the Ordinance”) to sell all the undivided shares of New Kowloon Inland Lot No 3941 (“the Lot”) on which two pairs of 5-storey tenement buildings (collectively “the Buildings”) are erected, having their addresses respectively as 308 & 310 and 312 & 314 Shun Ning Road, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon (respectively, “308/310 Building” and “312/314 Building”). The
Cited by 1 case · Cites 11 cases
|
LDCS 4000/2023 [2025] HKLdT 40 IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION LAND COMPULSORY SALE MAIN APPLICATION NO 4000 OF 2023 ______________________________ BETWEEN
______________________________
__________________ JUDGMENT __________________ Background 1.This is an application for a compulsory sale order (“the Application”) under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, Cap 545 (“the Ordinance”) to sell all the undivided shares of New Kowloon Inland Lot No 3941 (“the Lot”) on which two pairs of 5-storey tenement buildings (collectively “the Buildings”) are erected, having their addresses respectively as 308 & 310 and 312 & 314 Shun Ning Road, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon (respectively, “308/310 Building” and “312/314 Building”). The Buildings are collectively named as Tai Chung Court. 2.By reference to a Permit No K279/58 issued by the Building Authority on 15 October 1958 (“Occupation Permit”), permission was granted to occupy and use the Buildings for domestic purposes. Each of the Buildings has two domestic units per floor, giving a total of 20 domestic units. Each of the Buildings is served by one common staircase. 3.According to the record of the Land Registry, the Buildings are subject to a Deed of Mutual Covenant dated 27 February 2021 whereby each unit was allotted one equal and undivided share of and in the Lot. 4.As at the date of the Application, being 10 July 2023, the applicant owned all the equal undivided share of and in Lot save the following owned by two respondents:
5.The Lot was granted under Conditions of Grant No 5721 (“the Land Grant”) dated 12 March 1957 under the Civil Servants’ Co-operative Building Society Scheme which was launched by the Government in 1952 to provide accommodation to Co-operative Building Societies’ members and their families (“the Scheme”). The grantee in the present case was Tai Chung Co-operative Building Society Limited. 6.Co-operative Building Societies were formed by eligible civil servants, governed by the Co-operative Building Societies Ordinance, Cap 33. Under the Scheme, Co-operative Building Societies were granted lands by Government at a concessionary rate, together with Government loans to Co-operative Building Societies at preferential interest rates so as to enable them to build residential buildings for their members and families. Therefore, Co-operative Building Societies were lessees under the Government leases but Co-operative Building Societies can grant underleases to their members who shall have the right to the exclusive use of their respective flats in Co-operative Building Societies’ buildings. 7.In response to requests of the Co-operative Building Societies’ members, the Government in 1987 introduced the “Guidelines to be followed to achieve the transfer of title to flats and land from Civil Servants’ Co-operative Building Societies and Government Built Housing Schemes to their individual members and underlessees” under a surrender and regrant approach. Basically, it would allow the dissolution of the Co-operative Building Societies concerned and the transfer of legal titles from the dissolved Co-operative Building Societies to individual Co-operative Building Societies’ members subject to the unanimous consent to all members. 8.In 1993, the Government replaced the surrender and regrant approach with the “Guidelines to be followed to achieve the transfer of title to flats and land from Civil Servants’ Co-operative Building Societies to their individual members” by modification of the Government leases. Under this new approach, a Co-operative Building Society may, upon obtaining the consent of 75% of its members, apply for dissolution whereby the individual member may acquire title to his/her own flat and land by deed of assignment but subject to a alienation restriction. 9.The members of Tai Chung Co-operative Building Society Limited followed the new approach and dissolved the Tai Chung Co-operative Building Society Limited with the appointment of liquidator on 20 March 2020. The Land Grant was then modified by a Modification Letter dated 29 June 2020 vide memorial No 20071001420025 (“the Modification Letter”). 10.The Land Grant as modified by the Modification Letter dated 29 June 2020 contained provisions to restrict, inter alia, alienation save as provided by paragraph (F) under Special Condition No (18) of the Third Schedule to the Modification Letter. The following provisions of the Modification Letter are relevant to the removal of the non-alienation provision:
11.Paragraph (B) under Special Condition No (18) of the Third Schedule to the Modification Letter further provided that:
12.By an Assignment dated 17 February 2023 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No 23022001210035 executed by the Liquidator in favour of R1, she became the registered owner of her unit in the Buildings, ie 3/F, together with Balcony and Veranda Appertaining Thereto of No 308 Shun Ning Road (“R1’s Unit”). 13.By an Assignment dated 17 February 2023 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No 23022001210015 executed by the Liquidator in favour of R2, the latter became the registered owner of 3/F, together with Balcony and Veranda Appertaining Thereto of No 314 Shun Ning Road. 14.The Legal Charge Memorial No 23022001210048 was executed by R1 in favour of The Financial Secretary Incorporated (“FSI”) in respect of 3/F, 308 Shun Ning Road; the Legal Charge Memorial No 23022001210028 was executed by R2 in favour of FSI in respect of 3/F, 314 Shun Ning Road. 15.Clause 3 and Clause 4 under either of the two Legal Charges provided as follows:
16.The applicant and R2 had on 17 April 2023 entered into an agreement for sale and purchase to purchase R2’s unit. Pursuant to the provisional agreement for sale and purchase, completion would take place within 28 days from the date of notice in writing issued by the solicitors of the applicant notifying that the applicant has received original of the demand note for premium payable for removing the restriction on alienation. 17.Subsequent to the commencement of the Application, on 17 August 2023, the applicant acquired R2’s interest and share of the Lot when he became the registered owner on the same day. The Application against R2 was discontinued by an Order of the Tribunal dated 25 August 2023. 18.R1 has her own property as early as in 1993, being a joint tenant of a property at Laguna City, Lam Tin, Kowloon[1]. The other joint tenant, Mr Eric Ma, is her husband. By the Assignment from Tai Chung Co-operative Building Society Limited dated 17 February 2023, R1 came to be the owner of her unit in the Buildings, ie R1’s Unit. As can be gathered from the recital of the Assignment[2], R1 was not the nominated beneficial successor of her deceased father’s membership in Tai Chung Co-operative Building Society Limited. She only came to be eligible to her deceased father’s interest and rights after her siblings had waived their rights and interests. 19.As recounted by Ms Chow Ka Kay (“Ms Chow”), the Senior Manager and authorized representative of the applicant, in her supplemental witness statement dated 26 February 2024[3], the applicant had offered assistance to enable R1 to obtain title to R1’s Unit and incurred costs and expenses in the process. 20.By her Notice of Opposition dated 14 July 2023, R1 only took issue on valuations pursuant to the Ordinance and requested the applicant to pay the premium for removal of the alienation restriction and special stamp duty[4]. No issue was taken as to whether redevelopment of the Lot is justified due to the age or state of repair of the Buildings as prescribed under section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Ordinance. The Issue at Trial 21.A list of “agreed” issues dated 15 February 2025 is as follows:
22.In addition to the agreed issues, in the context of the Application, there is the question as to who should be responsible for the payment of premium for removing the non-alienation restriction. This issue has not been resolved legally albeit it had been addressed to by way of agreement by the applicant to pay the premium. 23.Indeed, at the hearing on 16 May 2024, the Tribunal enquired as to whether there was any legal issue which would necessitate the case to be listed before a judge and a member. R1 also pressed the applicant to indicate whether the applicant would shoulder the payment of the premium. According to the applicant, in order to avoid further delay to have the case to be heard before a panel of judge and member whose diaries may take a longer time to be fixed, the applicant came to indicate that the applicant was willing to pay the premium for R1’s Unit so that there would be no longer any legal issue. The applicant emphasised that this indication was made out of expediency so as to secure an early hearing date. Nevertheless, the applicant will abide by its indication. Legal Representation 24.The applicant is represented by Mr C Y Li SC (“Mr Li”), leading Mr Axis Yu, instructed by Messrs Ma Tang & Co whereas R1 is represented by Mr Ross M Y Yuen, leading Ms Eunice Lui, instructed by Messrs Foo & Li. The Evidence 25.The applicant has filed the following documents in support of the Application:
26.As afore-mentioned, R1 has appointed Dr Wong of Albert So Surveyors Limited to prepare the following reports:
27.In addition, Mr Lai and Dr Wong compiled the following joint statements:-
28.In gist, as confirmed by R1 to the Tribunal at the Pre-Trial Review hearing held on 17 February 2025, subject to proof of the statutory requirements for granting an order for sale by the applicant, R1 only took issue on valuation. R1 had not filed any expert evidence on building condition nor structural assessment. Instead, R1 agreed that the applicant’s reports on the two issues could be adduced without calling the experts. Whether the Applicant is Entitled to Make the Application 29.A prerequisite for an application for compulsory sale order is to meet the statutory ownership threshold of undivided shares in the lot(s) concerned as stipulated in section 3 of the Ordinance (before its amendment in 2024) as follows:-
30.Section 3(1) of the Ordinance requires an applicant to have not less than 90% of the undivided shares in a lot before he can make an application for an order to sell all the undivided shares in the lot for the purposes of the redevelopment of the lot. 31.Section 3(5) of the Ordinance provides that the Chief Executive in Council may, by notice in the Gazette, specify a percentage lower than the percentage mentioned in section 3(1) in respect of lots specified in the notice. 32.The Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment (Specification of Lower Percentage) Notice was gazetted on 22 January 2010 and came into operation on 1 April 2010 (“the Notice”). Section 3 of the Notice lowered the threshold for compulsory sale in respect of the classes of lots specified in the Notice from 90% to 80%. Those classes of lots include: “a lot with each of the buildings erected on the lot issued with an occupation permit at least 50 years before the relevant date”. 33.Given the Buildings were more than 50 years old prior to filing of the Application, the Notice is therefore applicable and the threshold percentage should be 80%. 34.It is undisputed that at the time of the commencement of the Application, the applicant owned 18/20 undivided share or 90% of the Lot. It is obvious that the applicant was entitled to make the Application for an order of sale of all undivided shares of the Lot for the purpose of redevelopment. EUV AS AT 25 APRIL 2023 35.According to section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Ordinance, there is a need to determine the respective values of the properties as assessed in the Application Report by which Mr Lai stated the valuation date was as at 25 April 2023. 36.By the 1st Joint Expert Statement between Mr Lai and Dr Wong dated 5 April 2024, most of the particulars of the units in the Buildings had been agreed:
37.Mr Lai and Dr Wong also agreed to adopt 3/F, 310 Shun Ning Road as the reference unit which had a unit rate of $70,000 per sq m as at 25 April 2023. They also agreed that the unit rate of the yard on G/F would fetch 1/5 of the unit proper. 38.Mr Lai and Dr Wong had, however, the following agreements/disagreements on the adjustment factors that may be applicable:
39.In respect of the adjustment for privacy and security, I tend to agree with Dr Wong as the boundary wall of the yard is only about 2.4 metres[5] high. Although the top of the boundary wall is installed with barbed wires, there are various structures in the yard along the scavenging lane, providing an easy environment for burglars who should have no difficulty in climbing across the wall[6]. 40.And because of the need to apply to the Government for the removal of the alienation clause as afore-mentioned, Mr Lai proposed a discount on value to allow for the time in receipt of the purchase price. But this only applies to evaluating the market value of R1’s unit which is the only one remaining. 41.In such regard, I had requested the applicant to provide the timeframe of removal of the alienation restriction for the 18 owners of the Buildings which is set out as follows:
42.Thus, the whole process appeared to have taken 10 months. 43.However, as stated in §§16-17 above, the whole process taken for acquiring R2’s interest took only some 4 months though the applicant argued it was only a special case. 44.Firstly, I am persuaded by Mr Yuen on behalf of R2 that this special case should have a good chance to be repeated in light of the Application. 45.Secondly, I suppose a willing seller under the definition of market value should have paid the premium for removal of the non-alienation clause beforehand, failing which he/she would not be in the position to sell his/her unit at market value. 46.Indeed, by reference to the letter dated 26 November 2021 issued by the Lands Department[8], the premium assessed was open for acceptance for 2 months (ie from 26 November 2021 to 25 January 2022). The letter also stated that, upon receipt of the applicant’s acceptance of the premium, the Demand Note for premium will be issued by 29 March 2022 which shall be settled within 28 days thereafter. It wonder how soon the premium was accepted, how soon the Demand Note for premium was issued and finally how soon the premium was paid. Obviously, this period could have been shortened by prompt actions. 47.Thirdly, I consider it fair and reasonable to value the market value of all units in the Building on equal basis. Otherwise, the value of the minority owner’s property, ie R1’s unit, as assessed in the Application is less than fair and reasonable when compared with the value of the applicant’s property as assessed in the Application, in breach of section 4(1)(ii)(B) of the Ordinance. 48.Therefore, I agree with Dr Wong that no deferment would be applicable. 49.As a result of the above, I can simply adopt the assessments of market value by Dr Wong as follows[9]:
50.Thus, the total EUV of the Buildings is $122,292,000 as at 25 April 2023 and the pro rata share of R1’s interest should be 7.5%. Whether Redevelopment of the Lot is Justified 51.Section 4(2) of the Ordinance provides that the Tribunal shall not make an order for sale unless it is satisfied that redevelopment of the Lot due to the “age or state of repair” of the Buildings is justified and that the applicant has taken “reasonable steps” to acquire all the undivided shares of the Lot. 52.R1 had not produced any expert report or evidence in relation to the question as to whether redevelopment of the Lot is justified due to the “age” or “state of repair" of the Buildings. 53.Top Sail International Limited v Cheng Kai Ming, LDCS 18000/2010 (unreported, 15 November 2011) and Charmlink Limited v Lee Tong Hing & Others, LDCS 16000/2010 (unreported, 29 November 2011) laid down the factors that the Tribunal should consider in determining whether redevelopment is justified due to age and state of repair. 54.In Top Sail, the Tribunal stated that:
55.Such approach was followed in Charmlink:
56.There is no disagreement on the principles set out in Top Sail and Charmlink in determining whether redevelopment is justified due to age and state of repair. The Tribunal is entitled to take into account the modern construction requirements. See §134 of Harvest Treasure Limited & Others v Cheung Fat Enterprises Limited & Others, LDCS 8000/2014 (unreported, 31 December 2015). 57.For the age and state of repair requirements, the applicant adduced the expert evidence of two experts: Dr Pong who is an authorized person and a building surveyor, and Mr Yau who is a civil and structural engineer. Their expertise was not disputed and the legal representative of R1 confirmed at the Pre-Trial Review hearing that there was no need for the applicant to call Dr Pong and Mr Yau for R1’s cross-examination. Structural Assessment 58.Firstly, in his Structural Assessment Report dated 20 December 2023, Mr Yau commented that the Buildings were designed and constructed more than 65 years ago, well exceeding the normal design working life of reinforced concrete buildings of 50 years. The existing condition of the reinforced concrete of the Buildings is considered to be very poor because very deep carbonation penetration was found with average carbonation depth of 75.4 mm which is far greater than the provided concrete cover of 25.4 mm. According to Mr Yau, the steel reinforcement inside the existing reinforced concrete structural elements are subject to serious carbonic acid attack. Hence, the effective area of steel reinforcement should have been significantly reduced and the strength of the structural elements should also have been significantly reduced[11]. 59.The table below shows the comparison of the Factor of Safety (“FOS”) of the two critical existing reinforced concrete cantilevered beams with steel area adjusted for carbonation effect, 3,941 mm2 and 3,473 mm2 respectively[12]:
60.In addition, the following structural defects and damages were observed by Mr Yau[14]:
61.Mr Yau was also of the view that the Buildings are founded on shallow pad footing foundation on soil around 2m below existing ground level. Also, the deterioration of the reinforced concrete is so serious that it cannot be restored to its original design quality through standard repair methods but complete recasting of key structures like the cantilevered beam is impractical due to existing structural limitations. Hence, the many cantilevered balconies over street pavement would render the Buildings becoming a hidden threat to occupants and the public. The Buildings should be completely demolished and rebuilt. Building Condition Survey 62.Dr Pong, in his Condition Survey Report also dated 20 December 2023, remarked that the Buildings were in poor conditions. 63.Dr Pong identified defects and deficiencies in, inter alia, the following aspects of the Buildings[15]:
64.Dr Pong estimated substantial repairs at the total estimated costs of $30,930,000 are required to be carried out in order to restore the Buildings to a tenantable standard[16]. This amounts to over 39% of the construction costs for new similar superstructures. However, the estimate mainly consisted of patch repair to the existing defects and no account had been made on upgrading the obsolete design of the Buildings. Thus, the repair cost, which is disproportionately high, demonstrated that the deterioration of the Buildings’ superstructure has been very serious and had reached a state which is beyond reasonable economic repair. 65.In any event, having carried out the joint inspection on 21 March 2025 and having considered the evidence before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that redevelopment of the Buildings is justified due to the age and state of repair of the Buildings. Whether the Applicant has Taken Reasonable Steps to Acquire 66.The applicant is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to negotiate on terms that are fair and reasonable for the purchase of the interest of the respondents under Section 4(2)(b) of the Ordinance. 67.It is not disputed that the applicant has made the following offers to R1 through their solicitors to acquire R1’s interest in 3/F, together with Balcony and Veranda Appertaining Thereto, No 308 Shun Ning Road:
68.Besides the offers, there had also been unsuccessful mediations on 21 August 2023 and 9 April 2024. 69.According to the applicant, the first 5 offers were made on the basis of the valuation assessed by Mr Lai while the later 2 were on the basis of the valuation assessed by Dr Wong. In the last offer on 14 February 2025, the offer was not only calculated on Dr Wong’s figure but also on the basis that the applicant was willing to pay the premium for removal of the alienation clause on behalf of R1. Nonetheless, R1 still rejected the last offer though the offer was to all intent and purpose the best price which R1 could obtain. 70.R1 did not accept any of the aforesaid offers made by the applicant though obviously, the offers were higher than the EUV of R1’s property at 3/F, together with Balcony and Veranda Appertaining Thereto, 308 Shun Ning Road at $9,173,000. 71.The applicant also explained that, in relation to the last offer, R1’s concern about paying Special Stamp Duty on selling her unit to the applicant was misplaced. The Government stated in a letter dated 22 May 2020 to all Chairpersons of Civil Servants’ Co-operative Building Societies that for assignment of legal title of a unit under the Scheme within 3 years after acquisition from the liquidator of a Co-operative Building Society after 22 May 2020, the Special Stamp Duty “may be remitted[17]”. In any event, there has been amendment to the Stamp Duty Ordinance whereby instruments executed after 28 February 2024 are not subject to special stamp duty. 72.More importantly, the Court of Final Appeal in Capital Well Limited v Bond Star Development Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 578, [2005] 4 HKLRD 363 (“Capital Well”), has emphasized at paragraph 33 that:
73.The Court of Final Appeal stated further at paragraph 36 of the judgment that:
74.Thus viewed, I am satisfied that on the evidence available and in the circumstances of the Application, the applicant has taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lot including negotiating for the purchase of such share as owned by R1 on terms that are fair and reasonable. The Estimation of the RDV of the Lot 75.The main dispute in these proceedings was on the estimation of the RDV of the Lot, which shall be taken into account in fixing the reserve price for the public auction when the order for sale is granted. 76.The Lot altogether comprises a rectangular site at the corner of Shun Ning Road and Cheung Fat Street with a net site area of 445.93 sq m. 77.Both Mr Lai and Dr Wong agreed to resort to the residual valuation method in determining the RDV. This can be done by deducting development cost (including construction costs, professional fees, finance costs etc) and developer’s profit from the estimated gross development value (“GDV”) of the completed optimum development. 78.Again, both Mr Lai and Dr Wong agreed the hypothetical development as follows for the purpose of carrying out their respective residual valuation[18]:
79.On the basis of this latest hypothetical development, Mr Lai arrived at a residual value for the Lot at $92,400,000[19] while Dr Wong arrived at $153,350,000[20]. Gross Development Value for G/F 80.Mr Lai and Dr Wong agreed there would be 3 shops on G/F
81.Mr Lai and Dr Wong agreed that they would adopt the hypothetical Shop 1 as a reference shop unit for the purpose of making comparison with transactions in the vicinity. By reference to the 1st Joint Expert Statement between Mr Lai and Dr Wong dated 5 April 2024, they happened to agree the unit rates for the three shops at $503,900, $554,300 and $501,000 respectively[21]. 82.However, when Mr Lai and Dr Wong prepared their more updated valuation, they departed. They could not agree the unit rate applicable, especially when they relied on different comparables:
83.Relying on their corresponding comparables, Mr Lai arrived at an adjusted unit rate of $385,100 per sq m while Dr Wong arrived at $465,000 per sq m. Choice of Comparables and Adjustment for Location 84.As said, the Lot is situated at the corner of Shun Ning Road and Cheung Fat Street which lies some 80 metres to the northwest of Po On Road Municipal Services Building where a regional wet market and next to it is a public library and a sports centre are accommodated. This is a focal point in the district which enjoys heavy pedestrian flows to and fro the vicinity during day time. In some respect, this portion of Cheung Fat Street leads residents of So Uk Estate, a public housing estate in and out. An off-course betting centre of the Hong Kong Jockey Club is situated on the other side of the corner across Cheung Fat Street. Castle Peak Road, a busy distributor which is traversed by a variety of public transports, runs in parallel to Shun Ning Road. 85.Comparable CR1 lies on Castle Peak Road but at a position that traffics run from the industrial areas further west before they turn right onto the captioned section of Castle Peak Road which is perhaps bounded by Cheung Wah Street running in perpendicular. I agree with Dr Wong that this area has significantly lighter pedestrian flow and a smaller catchment. There are various vacant shops here that include this comparable though it was transacted some 6 months ago. I also agree with Dr Wong that the business potential of this location is adversely affected by the Urban Renewal Authority’s urban renewal project SSP-017 at Kim Shin Lane which is targeted to be completed by 2032. This is a quieter and much inferior location when compared to the subject; Comparable CR1 should be disregarded as a comparable. 86.My same comments on Comparable CR1 above apply similarly to Comparable CR2 which lies just next to Comparable CR1. Indeed, there was one more vacant shop in the same development as observed during the joint site inspection. 87.Though having an address at Wing Lung Street, Comparable CR3 lies on Shun Ning Road on the other side of Po On Road Municipal Services Building as a restaurant. This is a comparable that was relied on by both valuation experts though they had different opinion on the adjustments for location that may be applicable: Mr Lai applied -30% while Dr Wong applied -15%. I prefer an adjustment of -20%. 88.Comparable CR4 lies on Castle Peak Road but at a little distance away from its junction with Fat Cheung Street. In fact, this transaction was also considered by the Tribunal in Smart Base Holding Limited & Another v Wong Tak Shing, LDCS 16000/2021 (unreported, dated 28 June 2024)[22]. In this latter case, Mr Lai was also one of the valuation experts. He had hesitation to adopt this transaction as a comparable because he considered the unit price achieved too low when compared with the others. In the present case, Mr Lai applied an adjustment for location at -5% while Dr Wong adopted +10%. I prefer Dr Wong’s adjustment. 89.Comparable CR5[23] lies on Fat Tseung Street which benefits from the heavy pedestrian flow to and from Po On Road Municipal Services Building. I agree with Mr Lai that the size of this comparable is too small but I prefer to adopt Dr Wong’s adjustment for location at -25% on de bene esse basis. 90.Surprisingly, Comparable CR6[24] is a comparable adopted by both Mr Lai and Dr Wong though it has a size only marginally larger than that of Comparable CR5. Certainly, this comparable lies closest to the Lot on the opposite side of Cheung Fat Street. This time, I prefer Mr Lai’s location adjustment of +5% to Dr Wong’s 0% for the reason that the reference shop unit lies on Shun Ning Road. 91.Mr Lai did not adopt Comparable CR7 because it was dated. Again, I adopt Dr Wong’s adjustment for location on de bene esse basis because there might not be sufficient good comparables. 92.Notwithstanding the above, Mr Lai and Dr Wong were able to agree the other adjustment factors as follows[25]:
93.Apart from the above, Mr Lai and Dr Wong had difference in opinion on the layout adjustment for the comparables. Having reviewed the layout plans of the comparables, I prefer Dr Wong’s proposed adjustments in case there is difference in opinion between him and Mr Lai. 94.Bearing in mind the above, my analysis for the GDV of the hypothetical shop is as follows:
95.While the average of the above analysis gives an adjusted unit rate of $429,079 per sq m, Comparables CR5 and CR7 are adopted only on de bene esse basis:
96.If these later two comparables are excluded, the average will become $435,524 per sq m. I am prepared to accept therefore a unit rate of $435,000 per sq m for the reference shop unit. 97.But in view of the very small size of Comparables CR5 & CR6, I am prepared to check the above result by applying the zoning analysis. 98.The zoning concept is based on the principle that the area closest to the frontage (Zone A) is the most valuable part of a shop, but as the distance away from the front of the shop increases the value per unit of area decreases. Thus, when a value per square metre is arrived at Zone A by reference to sales or lettings of comparables, rates for the other zones in the rear will be derived formulaically and from that the value for the shop is analyzed whereby a process, often known as “halving back”, is used most extensively. 99.I assume that the depth of Zone A is 7 metres and therefore the whole area of these two comparables can be assumed as having a Zone A value of $685,654 per sq m and $584,742 per sq m respectively. They are then analysed as follows:
100.Thus, value of the hypothetical Shop 1 is assessed as follows:
101.This $408,733 per sq m is only 6% lower than $435,000 per sq m and I am prepared to adopt the latter as the unit rate of $435,000 per sq m for the reference shop unit. 102.Whereas Mr Lai and Dr Wong were able to agree all the adjustments that may be applicable to other hypothetical units[26], I determine the GDV of the G/F of the hypothetical development as follows:
Gross Development Value for 1/F 103.In respect of the unit value for the hypothetical 1/F, Mr Lai and Dr Wong agreed that it would be 51.5% that of the G/F. 104.That is, the GDV for 1/F (including G/F access) can be assessed as follows:
Gross Development of Parking Spaces 105.Mr Lai and Dr Wong agreed the value of the parking spaces as follows[28]:
Gross Development Value for Upper Floors 106.Mr Lai and Dr Wong were able to reach agreements on the particulars of the domestic portion of the hypothetical development:
107.Mr Lai or Dr Wong relied on sales of units in the following developments as their comparables, arriving at $169,500 per sq m and $185,300 per sq m for a hypothetical domestic unit on 12/F which has a saleable area of 32.931 sq m[29]. The Harmonie 108.The Harmonie, which is situated at No 233 Castle Peak Road, is within 5 minutes’ walking distance from the hypothetical development. While this development was completed in November 2022, I am surprised that Dr Wong could only provide transactions of units only up to February 2024 where Flat E on 6/F was sold for $8,612,800 or $181,242 per sq m. I agree with Mr Lai that these transactions were dated. More particularly, I note that this development comprises 12 residential units on each typical floor[30] which is quite different from that of the hypothetical development. I decline accepting transactions provided by Dr Wong in this development as comparables. 109.Notwithstanding the above, I note two recent sale in March 2025, one being Flat J on 26/F at $5,590,000 or $186,532 per sq m and the other being Flat D, 28/F at $5,900,000 or $197,252 per sq m. The Addition 110.Both Mr Lai and Dr Wong relied on transactions of units in The Addition as comparables. This development is situated at No 350 Un Chau Street some mid-way between its junction with Fat Tseung Street and Cheung Fat Street. It was completed a little earlier in April 2021, comprising mostly studio flats of smaller size at about 25 sq m. This development comprises 8 units on each typical floor. The two latest transactions as provided by the two valuation experts are as follows:
Amber Place 111.Both Mr Lai and Dr Wong relied on transactions of units in Amber Place as comparables. Completed more recently in July 2023, this development is situated at No 1 Cheung Wah Street at its junction with Cheung Sha Wan Road which is another distributor running to an extent in parallel with Castle Peak Road but at a distance away from the Lot. This development comprises only two units per floor with Flat As being the larger but corner units. 112.While Mr Lai suggested that Amber Place is close to the MTR Lai Chi Kok Station and there are shops on daily necessities in the vicinity, I agree with Dr Wong that this development is comparatively less accessible to the daily necessities which concentrate around the subject locality. I prefer however a minor +3% adjustment for location to Dr Wong’s 5%. 113.There appear to have more recent sales by the developer:
Echo House 114.Again Echo House comprises a development at a corner site at the junction of Tonkin Street and Fuk Wing Street. It is the first private residential development[31] developed by employing Modular Integrated Construction (MiC) whereby free-standing integrated modules (completed with finishes, fixtures and fittings) are manufactured in a prefabrication factory and then transported to site for installation in a building. 115.While this construction method is not new in Hong Kong, being promoted by the Government due to its numerous benefits, including enhancing project safety and productivity, minimising construction time and cost, as well as mitigating the existing problems in the local construction industry (e.g. labour shortage), buildings of this kind, mainly developed by the Government initiated projects or by the Hong Kong Housing Authority for public housings, receive unfavourable public media coverage. 116.In a typical MiC project, the architect divides the floor plates into different modules to facilitate their productions. Usually, one module is used for a small studio flat. Two or three modules are used for a larger-sized apartment. A general rule is to locate the joints at the partition walls so that touching-up work in the future would be limited to the doorway locations. However, the walls will become double-layered once two modules are assembled, resulting in loss of internal floor spaces. More importantly, complaints have been directed towards the limitation on implementing design changes by prospective owners and water seepage problems. Thus, Dr Wong was hesitant to adopt transactions of units in Echo House as comparables. 117.Nevertheless, owing to this Echo House being in the same locality of the subject and completed recently on 15 August 2024, I am prepared to include two more transactions on lower floors as proposed by Dr Wong for the purpose of analysis and to check if such units built by MiC fetch lower market values:
118.Notwithstanding the above, Mr Lai and Dr Wong were able to agree to have a hypothetical unit on 12/F as the reference unit. They had the following agreements/ disagreements[32]:
Holding Cost 119.The 4 transactions in Echo House had their preliminary agreements for sale and purchase signed on 27 October 2024 whereby, after paying an initial deposit of 5% of the purchase price, the purchasers have to pay off the balance of the purchase price within 120 days, ie 24 February 2025. Dr Wong considered necessary to make allowance for the holding cost for the period between 24 February 2025 and the material date of 18 June 2025 as shown on the sale brochure, ie a total of 114 days. 120.I do not agree as I consider 120 days not unreasonably long or abnormal though the usual completion period is 1 to 3 months. Indeed, according to the Register of Transactions in Echo House, there have been 4 transactions where the purchasers found preferable to change their payment plans:
121.In any event, occupation permit for Echo House has been issued on 15 August 2024 by the Building Authority. Whereas according to clause 6(1) of the Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreements, delivery of vacant possession is subject to the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance which was in fact issued on 2 April 2025. Layout for Echo House 122.Having reviewed the layout and floor plans of Echo House, I agree with Dr Wong that its units have thicker walls with no flexibility for alteration or removal. Indeed, by reference to the Joint Practice Note No 8 issued by Buildings Department, Lands Department and Planning Department, it was stated that MiC involves “repetitive double walls between MiC modules, thicker enclosure walls” for rigging and hoitsting during transportation and assembly, and for this reason GFA and site coverage concessions are granted[33]. However, I prefer to adopt an adjustment of +2% to Dr Wong’s +3%. Dark Toilet 123.According to the Building (Planning) Regulations, toilets/bathrooms should be provided with windows for natural lighting and ventilation. However, the Buildings Department was sympathetic with the argument on advancement of ventilation technology and the need for greater freedom in the design of buildings. In December 1997, it issued Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geotechnical Engineers (“PNAP”) 219 on Lighting and Ventilation for Bathrooms and Lavatories in Domestic Buildings so as to allow flexibility in designing domestic flats. The PNAP is now replaced by PNAP APP 98 so that bathrooms and toilets in domestic buildings provided with artificial lighting, if mechanical ventilation and permanent ventilation facilities fulfilling the requirements under the said PNAP are provided, can be exempted from the provision of windows for natural lighting and ventilation. These are commonly referred to as “dark toilets/bathrooms”. 124.Unfortunately, there is no supervision on the repair or maintenance of the mechanical ventilation and permanent ventilation facilities to fulfill the requirements. As time passes, such dark toilets/bathrooms are notorious for becoming humid and contaminated with bacteria and virus[34]. 125.While it is true as stated by Mr Lai that the provision of dark toilets/bathrooms has now becoming common in modern residential buildings, people or prospective buyers still distinguish dark toilets/bathrooms from the ones with windows and natural lighting. 126.Having said that, I agree with Dr Wong to an adjustment of +2% for those unit in Echo House. Lift Provision 127.In Dr Wong’s Valuation and Rebuttal Report on RDV dated 25 January 2024, he stated at §6.38 as follows[35]:
128.Then in his Supplemental Valuation Report on RDV dated 12 February 2025, Dr Wong stated at §3.53 as follows[36]:
129.Mr Lai argued otherwise however in his Rebuttal Report dated 26 February 2024[37]:
130.With respect to Mr Lai, I do not agree with him. In a competitive property market, developers would definitely employed lifts modernised with similar efficiency. The efficiency of one lift would never be equivalent to that of two lifts. As a result, I agree with Dr Wong’s allowance for lift provisions. 131.In their closing submission for the applicant, Mr Li, leading Mr Yu, referred to Alliance Fame Limited & Others v Mak Kam To & Others, LDCS 9000/2015 (unreported, dated 4 August 2017) where the Tribunal remarked at §137 that “the comparison columns regarding the number of office floors or total GFA served by a lift in the office comparables … is however illusionary and misleading”. With respect, Mr Li, leading Mr Yu had read the sentence quoted out of context. 132.In Alliance Fame, the comparison was not between buildings with one and two lifts. In §133 of the judgment, a table showing the differences in provision of lifts of various is now extracted for reference:
133.In such circumstances when several serving units (ie in that case, the number of lifts) are involved, “the efficiency of lift loading (usually denoted as ρ in the lift queueing evaluation process) is also determined by lift zoning, speeds of the lifts, appropriate waiting time designed etc. Such information or differentiations between office buildings are important as, generally speaking:
134.Again, such a complex calculation assuming a Poisson arrival process would not be required when it is obvious that the efficiency of one lift would never be equivalent to that of two lifts. The complex calculation is only necessary to determine the capacity of a multi-car lift system, ie the total number of passengers it can transport within a specific time frame[38] . Facilities & Building Quality 135.At this juncture, it is firstly noted that Mr Lai applied +2% for units in and Amber Place and The Addition whereas Dr Wong applied none. This difference in opinion was however clarified when Mr Lai explained that the +2% was to reflect the lack of car parking spaces in The Addition. On the other hand, Dr Wong had separately applied +1% for units in these two developments. Thus, the difference between Mr Lai and Dr Wong was just 1%. 136.The similar difference occurred when Dr Wong applied +1% for units in Harmonie and The Addition, -1% for units in Amber Place when Mr Lai proposed none. 137.Indeed, Dr Wong, in his Supplemental Valuation Report on RDV dated 12 February 2025, stated at §3.51 as follows[39]:
138.In response, in their closing submission, Mr Li, leading Mr Yu, submitted that such media reports are inadmissible hearsay evidence. However, under section 10(6) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance, Cap 17:
139.Mr Li, leading Mr Yu, further submitted that even if such media reports are admitted for reference, they should be given no weight because there are a total of 42 units in Amber Place but the media reports concerned only 3 units. However, a fraction of 3 out of 42, ie more than 7% is not an insignificant consideration. 140.Next, Dr Wong compared Echo House, which as afore-mentioned is the first private residential development applying MiC, with a similar MiC project developed by the Hong Kong Housing Society using MiC method – Eminence Terrace which were found to have suffered from a lot of defects, including floor misalignment and water seepage[41]. He was of the view that there might be public concern on the quality of buildings constructed by MiC and therefore proposed +10% adjustment to be made on all transactions of units in Echo House. 141.Mr Lai did not agree with Dr Wong. However, Mr Lai was prepared to adopt +2% for sales in Amber Place and The Addition to reflect that there was no provision of car parking spaces there when compared with the hypothetical development. 142.Thus, having reviewed the above, I am going to apply the following adjustments for facilities/ building quality of the comparable developments:
Noise/Nuisance 143.Notwithstanding the agreement above, Dr Wong considered that if transactions of Echo House be adopted as comparables, an allowance of +1% would be required to reflect there being a public toilet across Un Chau Street at the corner. I agree with Mr Lai that the public toilet is small and appears to be reasonably maintained. More particularly, the entrance of Echo House is located on the side of Fuk Wing Street which leads to the MTR Cheung Sha Wan station to the southwest along Tonkin Street. In addition, the development itself has been set-back some distance from Un Chau Street. 144.I agree with Mr Lai that the public toilet should have no effect on the living environment of the domestic units in Echo House. Aspect 145.I agree with Dr Wong’s proposed adjustments for the different aspects. 146.On the other hand, in their closing submission for the applicant, Mr Li, leading Mr Yu, referred to Peace Ever Limited & Others v Chan Shui Ching & Others, LDCS 28000/2018 (unreported, dated 1 August 2023) and suggested that the Tribunal considered the adjustment to orientation/ aspect “against common understanding and should be disregarded”. With respect, Mr Li, leading Mr Yu, had read the sentence out of context. 147.In that case, Mr Lai (who happened to a valuation expert as well) agreed with the other valuation expert that the unit rate for the EUV of the reference domestic unit of the existing developments was $114,100 per sq m[42]. Thus, it was necessary to apply adjustments to this agreed unit rate in assessing the EUV of the other domestic units in the developments. 148.Like the present case, one of the adjustments in dispute was that on orientation. At §245, the Tribunal remarked as follows:
149.The sentence quoted by Mr Li, leading Mr Yu, meant Mr Lai’s proposed adjustments on orientation/ aspect in that case was against common understanding because he suggested that units that face north, northeast and northwest should enjoy a higher unit rate while the subject domestic units face southwest. 150.Also in that case, the existing developments which comprised 8 or 9 storeys were built in 1959/ 1960. For such aged developments without service of lifts, the orientation or aspect of a domestic unit may not be an important factor affecting its value. In comparison, in the present case, the hypothetical development is a high-rise modern building with wider and different orientation or exposure. I consider the adjustments on the different aspects of the various domestic units proposed by Dr Wong reasonable. Assessment of the GDV of the Reference Domestic Unit 151.In view of the above, I analysed the various sales of the above comparables as follows:
152.Having reviewed the above, I am prepared to adopt $176,000 per sq m for the hypothetical unit on 12/F. And following the adjustments proposed by Dr Wong, I determine the GDV of the domestic portion of the hypothetical development as follows:
Other Parameters of Residual Valuation 153.In respect of other parameters of the residual valuation, Mr Lai and Dr Wong also had the following agreements or disagreements[44]:
Interest Rate 154.While HIBOR rates had fluctuated around 3.6% for some time, they have been dropping since the second week of May 2025. Nevertheless, the best lending rate quoted by HSBC has remained at 5.25% since 20 December 2024. In such regard, I prefer to adopt 4.75% as proposed by Mr Lai. Premium for Modification of Government Lease 155.There are development restrictions in the Government Lease as modified on 29 June 2020. In the Second Schedule of the Modification Letter[45]:
156.Thus, to facilitate development of the Lot as envisaged for the hypothetical development, a premium would be payable to the Government so as to remove the restrictions. 157.Mr Lai and Dr Wong was able to agree the amount of premium payable at $140,575,000[46]. 158.As well, Mr Lai and Dr Wong was able to agree that premium would be payable for the exemption of green features such as balconies and utility platforms under the Joint Government Practice Notes Nos 1 and 2 from gross floor area and site coverage calculations. Under the current land administration practice, the land premium for these exemption is calculated based on standard rates[47]. The two valuation experts agreed that it would be $2,979,200[48]. 159.The time assumed by the two valuation experts for such modifications is 18 months. Finding on RDV and the Reserve Price 160.Thus, on the basis of what I have stated above, I determine the land value of the Lot at $83,300,000 as shown in the Appendix herein. 161.This is, with respect, lower than the $92,400,000 assessed by Mr Lai, not to mention the $153,350,000 determined by Dr Wong. 162.I adopt the estimated RDV of $83,300,000 as the Reserve Price for the auction of the Lot. Incidental Matters 163.The applicant proposes to appoint Mr Lam San Keung and Ms Ma Lap Yan, being senior partner and partner respectively of Messrs Grandall Zimmern Law Firm, as the sale trustees. Based on the information on their background and experience as set out in their letters dated 14 November 2024[49], I am satisfied that they are proper persons to be appointed as trustees to discharge the duties imposed on trustees under the Ordinance. The remuneration package proposed in the said letter appears to be reasonable. 164.The applicant has prepared a set of draft Particulars and Conditions of Sale of the Lot[50]. Subject to any amendment that may become necessary as a result of our agreement, the said particulars and conditions of sale of the Lot by public auction submitted by the applicant are also reasonable. 165.Earlier in this judgment at §22, I have referred to there being a question as to who should be responsible for the payment of premium for removing the non-alienation restriction. This issue has not been resolved legally albeit it had been addressed to by way of agreement by the applicant to pay the premium. 166.Paragraphs 16 & 17 above have briefly described how the applicant acquired R2’s interest. In all respects, the sale and purchase was not different from that of a property subject to a legal charge, for instance, in favour of a bank in Hong Kong. The purchaser would only pay the market value of the property subject to the discharge of the legal charge. 167.In the present case where the property is subject to the non-alienation clause under the Civil Servants Co-operative Scheme, the discharge process has appeared to have taken a longer time, particularly when the premium payable for the discharge was unknown at the first instance. But the nature is not materially different. The intending vendor may, of course, avoid the long process, by paying the premium beforehand. Alternatively, he/she can wait until a prospective buyer is secured and make use of the purchase price at stake to pay off the premium just prior to completion of the transaction. In either case, it would usually be the case that the vendor is responsible for the payment of premium for removing the non-alienation restriction unless the vendor and purchaser are willing to agree otherwise. 168.Subsequent to the commencement of the Application, on 17 August 2023, the applicant acquired R2’s interest and share of the Lot when he became the registered owner on the same day. The Application against R2 was discontinued by an Order of the Tribunal dated 25 August 2023. 169.Indeed, in Fuller Holdings Limited & Another v Hsu Ling Ling & Another, LDCS 13000/2019, the Tribunal had come across similar application for compulsory sale of a building subject to the non-alienation clause under the Civil Servants Co-operative Scheme. In that case, likewise, the Tribunal did not have to rule on the issue because of the concession by the majority owners. 170.Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal observed at §§22-23 minor differences between the Legal Charge entered into under the Civil Servants Co-operative Scheme and normal charges or mortgages. With respect, those differences as stated would not affect the nature of the Legal Charge. 171.I agree with the counsel’s submission in Fuller Holdings, supra, as quoted by the Tribunal that the alienation restriction secured by the Legal Charge is no different in nature from the kind of encumbrances envisaged by the Ordinance and is also no different in nature of any ordinary legal charge entered into by a purchaser/ owner over his property to charge the land he purchased/ owned as security in favour of the vendor for a portion of the unpaid purchase price. By section 11(7)(a) of the Ordinance, “the application of the proceeds of sale to discharge any liability or incumbrance referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) shall be on the basis that the majority owner or minority owner of the lot shall pay for the discharge to the extent that the liability or incumbrance, as the case may be, is attributable to that majority owner or minority owner, as the case may be[51]”. The removal of the non-alienation clause under the Civil Servants Co-operative Scheme is obviously an incumbrance attributable to the individual minority owner like R1. 172.The perceived “hardship” as touched upon by the Tribunal in Fuller Holdings, supra, at §23, if any, faced by a minority owner under Civil Servants Co-operative Scheme is no different from the position of the other minority owners faced in a compulsory sale application under the Ordinance. 173.On the other hand, by reference to the Procedure and Estimated Time for Removal of Alienation Restrictions published by the Lands Department in August 2024[52], if an owner of a property subject to the non-alienation clause under the Civil Servants Co-operative Scheme put his/her property on the market but insisting that the prospective buyer should pay for the premium for removing the non-alienation clause which is unknown at that time. The latter is an uncertainty which renders no sale at all or the property owner has to accept a discount in market price. As stated by me during the trial, this can be compared to a prospective sale of a property under the Home Ownership Scheme or that of a village-type house owned by an indigenous villagers subject to a non-alienation clause in the Government land grant[53]. 174.For instance, in the Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase with R2 dated 17 April 2023, Clause 8 stated it was for R2 as vendor to pay for the premium for the removal of the non-alienation clause[54]. 175.For the sake of clarity, the process of removing a non- alienation clause must be distinguished from an acquisition of land for development by a developer subject to certain user or development restriction in the Government lease. In such latter case, as stated by Lord Millett NPJ of the Court of Final Appeal in Director of Lands v Yin Shuen Enterprises Limited & Another [2003] 2 HKLRD 399, (2003) 6 HKCFAR at §14:
176.With respect, the latter market reality is not applicable to R1. The developer would be willing to pay a premium higher than the sum of the existing use value of the land and the estimated premium payable to Government for modification of the Government lease because the developer is not only acquiring an existing use value of the land but also an option for modification which, unlike other options being traded in the financial market, has no expiration date. In another respect, in such circumstances, the developer has acquired an option to delay or expand a development until he/she sees fit to proceed with the modification process[55]. A willing seller under the definition of market value cannot enjoy this option to delay or expand a development until and unless he/she is in the position to sell after the premium for removal of the non-alienation clause is paid beforehand. 177.Indeed, the Tribunal had on one occasion tried to quantify the value of a similar option in Kwok Lee Sau Sang v Director of Lands & Survey [1977] HKLTLR 105, 111-112:
178.Notwithstanding this crude method of analysis, it dealt with the uncertainty associated in the lease modification process before the development of the option pricing model by Fischer Black, Robert C Merton and Myron Scholes, the latter two being the Nobel Price laureates[56]. Order 179.Thus analyzed, I make the following orders:
Costs 180.In accordance with the compensation approach as determined by the Court of Appeal in Good Faith Properties Ltd and Others v Cibean Development Co Ltd [2014] 5 HKLRD 534, the respondent is entitled to costs notwithstanding the outcome of the Application. However, Mr Li (leading Mr Yu) submits that the Tribunal has to make a different costs order here in that R1 should pay the applicant costs after 14 February 2025 inclusive of the trial. 181.In Good Faith Properties, supra, the Court of Appeal referred at §28 to particularly Purfleet Farms Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2003] 1 P & CR 20 as a concise summary of the approach:
182.Then the Court of Appeal ventilated, inter alia, the following considerations:
183.In the present case, although R1 had taken the position to put the applicant to prove that the statutory criteria for granting an order for sale is satisfied and she only took issue on valuation, it should be as plain as a pikestaff to R1, who had been legally represented, that
184.Even as regards the reasonableness of the offers by the applicant, it is important to note that in the offer made by the applicant on 14 February 2025 in particular, it was calculated on the basis of Dr Wong’s figures and the applicant even agreed to pay the premium for removal of the non-alienation clause in the Government lease of the Lot[57]. By reference to the Supplemental Valuation Report on RDV dated 12 February 2025, Dr Wong determined the RDV of the Lot at $149,800,000[58]. 185.Without accepting this latest offer, by reference to Messrs Foo & Li’s letter of 20 February 2025, there was only the bare assertion that R1’s Unit had sentimental value to R1 because it was said that R1’s parents, ‘her own family’ and her nephews had been living there for so long. With respect, such an argument never formed one of the consideration prescribed by the Ordinance that the Tribunal has to take into account before granting an order for sale of the Lot. In fact, the allegation appears to be a bare assertion, notwithstanding R1 and her husband had since 1993 owned a property at Laguna City, Lam Tin. R1 only became the owner of her unit only on 17 February 2023. 186.As an aside, I agree with the applicant that it is a distortion for R1 to suggest that it was the applicant who came to the Tribunal to pray for an order for sale when R1 had done nothing wrong. More particularly, according to the applicant, R1 was not the eligible successor to R1’s Unit. It was with the assistance of the applicant that she got the title where the applicant was induced by representation made on R1’s behalf that R1 would sell R1’s Unit to the applicant after obtaining title. 187.In any event, with respect to R1, her decision to drag on with the proceedings had only jetted up costs and wasted the judicial resources. The trial of 4 days to deal with the so-called valuation issue was also totally unnecessary in view of the offer made by the applicant on 14 February 2025. 188.Accordingly, I order that the applicant do pay the 1st respondent’s costs in these proceedings on High Court scale, with certificate for one counsel, including any costs reserved, up to 20 February 2025, ie the date of reply from Messrs Foo & Li. 189.On the other hand, I order the 1st respondent to pay the applicant’s cost in these proceedings on High Court scale, with certificate for one counsel, after 20 February 2025, inclusive of the trial. 190.The above costs will be taxed if no agreement can be reached by the parties. 191.Last but not least, the Tribunal thanks the Counsel for their assistance.
Mr C Y Li SC, leading Mr Axis Yu, instructed by Messrs Ma Tang & Co, for the applicant Mr Ross M Y Yuen, leading Ms Eunice Lui, instructed by Messrs Foo & Li, for the 1st respondent
[1] See Exhibit A1. [2] See Bundle B/21/135-136. [3] See Bundle B/20/30-31. [4] See Bundle A/2/14-15. [5] See Bundle D1/67/37. [6] See Bundle D1/130. [7] The letter from the Civil Service Bureau dated 27 September 2021 stated in its 3rd paragraph that:
[8] See Annex 4 to Appendix 1 of R1’s closing submission. [9] See Exhibit AR1. [10] In comparison, Mr Lai’s assessment was $8,874,000 which is about 3.26% less. [11] See Bundle E2/152. [12] See Bundle E2/148-149. [13] BS 8110 Part 1: 1985, Structural Use of Concrete: Part 1. Code of Practice for Design and Construction and PNAP APP-68 on Design and Construction of Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Structures. [14] See Bundle E2/141. [15] See Bundle E1/13-14. [16] See Bundle E1/130-131. [17] See Bundle C1/167-171. [18] See Bundle D7/75/1176-1177. [19] See Bundle D7/75/1222. [20] See Bundle D7/75/1251. [21] See Bundle D5/72/860 & 883. [22] It was Comparable C2 in that case. [23] It was also Comparable C4 in Smart Base Holding Limited, supra, but the particulars agreed by the respective experts were slightly different:
[24] It was also Comparable C5 in Smart Base Holding Limited, supra, but the particulars agreed by the respective experts were slightly different:
[25] See Bundle D7/75/1187. [26] See Bundle D7/75/1191. [27] By reference to the 1st Joint Expert Statement between Mr Lai and Dr Wong dated 5 April 2024, they happened to agree the unit rates for the three shops at $503,900, $554,300 and $501,000 respectively.
[28] See Bundle D7/1220. [29] See Exhibit AR1. [30] The development has 9 units on 6/F. [31] This development is jointly developed by the Chinachem Group and the Urban Renewal Authority, the latter being established under the Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance in May 2001 as the statutory body to undertake, encourage, promote and facilitate the regeneration of the older urban areas of Hong Kong. [32] See Bundle D7/75/1194-1196. [33] See Bundle D7/75/1283. [34] www.hk01.com/01觀點/510096/黑廁-遺禍深遠-政府須還廁所陽光空氣 [35] See Bundle D4/74/676. [36] See Bundle D6/1108. [37] See Bundle D5/71/834. [38] See, for example, N A Alexandria, C J Harris and G C Barney, “Evaluation of the handling capacity of multi-car lift systems”. Applied Mathematical Modelling, Volume 5, Issue 1, February 1981, Pages 49-52: https://www.scribd.com/document/111106661/elevador-2 [39] See Bundle D6/74/1107. [40] See Bundle D7/75/1262-1270: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3gpWc8BXOY & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JX3AGKcSnY [41] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFalagD7FzE & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a418tEuPekM [42] See §228 of the judgment. [43] By reference to the schematic diagram of the hypothetical development (at Exhibit AR4), which shall have its main entrance on Cheung Fat Street, I agree with Dr Wong that the building core would not necessarily be located at the centre of the Lot or the design of the upper floor flats needs not be symmetrical on both sides. Given the low building height of the commercial podium of So Uk Estate and the heights of the buildings situated on the northeast side of the Lot along Po On Road, I agree with him that the layout can be slightly adjusted so that more units can enjoy a better view from 5/F onwards. [44] See Bundle D7/1178-1180. [45] See Bundle D2/331 or Bundle D4/744. [46] See Bundle D7/1182. [47] https://www.landsd.gov.hk/doc/en/practice-note/lpn/PN%204_2023.pdf [48] See Bundle D7/1182. [49] See Bundle C2/65/411-414. [50] See Bundle C2/66/415-458. [51] Underline added. [52] See Exhibit AR3. [53] See Li Sze Fat v Cheng Ka Leung Tommy & Another [2000] 3 HKC 224 at §37. [54] See Bundle D3/69/633. [55] See Aswath Damodaran, Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset, Chapter 28 (The Option to Delay and Valuation Implications) and Chapter 28 (The Options to Expand and to Abandon: Valuation Implications), 3rd Edn, 2012, Wiley. [56] It is regretted that Mr Black passed away two years before the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (which is not given posthumously) was awarded to his collaborator Myron Scholes and former colleague Robert C Merton for the Black-Scholes model and Merton's application of the model to a continuous-time framework. [57] See Bundle C2/63/394-405. [58] See Bundle D6/74/1129. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under LDCS 4000/2023