Li Kin Hung and Another v. Director of Lands
Read the full judgment text of LDLR 2/2022 on BabelCite. This Lands Tribunal judgment was delivered on 30 April 2026.
1. Before the Tribunal, there are two applications by the Applicants in LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022 for determination of the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent for land resumed under the Lands Resumption Ordinance, Cap 124 (“the LRO”).
Cites 31 cases
|
LDLR 2 & 3/2022 (Heard Together) [2026] HKLdT 27 LDLR 2/2022 IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION LANDS RESUMPTION APPLICATION NO 2 OF 2022 ___________________
________________________ LDLR 3/2022 IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION LANDS RESUMPTION APPLICATION NO 3 OF 2022 ___________________
___________________
__________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ Introduction and Background 1.Before the Tribunal, there are two applications by the Applicants in LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022 for determination of the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent for land resumed under the Lands Resumption Ordinance, Cap 124 (“the LRO”). LDLR 2/2022 2.The Applicants in LDLR 2/2022 (“the 145 Applicants”) were the former registered owners, being tenants-in-common, of Fifth Floor (“5/F”), No 145 Queen’s Road West, Hong Kong (“the 145 Property”) in a 6-storey tenement building (“the 145 Building”). 3.By a Deed of Mutual Covenant dated 29 March 1969 vide memorial UB 676531, the 145 Property was assigned 1/7th equal and undivided share of and in Inland Lot 4162 Remaining Portion and Inland Lot 4163 Section B (collectively referred to as “the 145 Lots”) on which the 145 Building was erected:
LDLR 3/2022 4.The Applicants in LDLR 3/2022 (“the 147 Applicants”) were the former registered owners, being tenants-in-common, of First Floor (“1/F”), No 147 Queen’s Road West, Hong Kong (“the 147 Property”). 5.By a Deed of Mutual Covenant dated 29 March 1969 vide memorial 695792, being a different Deed of Mutual Covenant from the 145 Property, the 147 Property was assigned 1/7th equal and undivided share of and in Inland Lot 4163 Section C and Inland Lot 4164 Section B (collectively referred to as “the 147 Lots”):
Wing Cheung Building 6.Erected along Nos 141-151 Queen’s Road West were 3 pairs of 6-storey tenement buildings (6 tenement buildings) together named Wing Cheung Building. The pair of buildings at No 145 Queen’s Road West (“the 145 Building”) and at No 147 Queen’s Road West (“the 147 Building”) stood in the middle of the terrace, lying opposite to the Sai Ying Pun Jockey Club Polyclinic in the Sai Ying Pun District of Hong Kong. 7.By reference to the Occupation Permit of Wing Cheung Building (as a whole), Permit No H 45/69[1] (“the Occupation Permit”), issued by the Building Authority on 11 March 1969, each of the 6 tenement buildings comprised a ground floor (“G/F”) shop unit and one domestic unit on each upper floor which had however to share a common staircase with the adjoining 6-storey tenement building. That is, the upper floors of the 145 Building and the 147 Building had to share one common staircase. 8.By reference to the approved building plan No G1/6 approved by the Building Authority on 8 November 1967, there existed a basement level (“the Basement”) below Wing Cheung Building along Nos 141-151 Queen’s Road West, but abutting also the service lane at the rear which runs in parallel to Queen’s Road West. 9.By reference to Appendix 4 to the Valuation Report dated 2 May 2024 prepared by Mr Liu King Tong (“Mr Liu”) of K T Liu Surveyors Limited for both LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022, the valuation expert appointed by the 145 Applicants and the 147 Applicants, a small area hatched red at the Basement under G/F, No 145 Queen’s Road West or G/F, No 147 Queen’s Road West as the case may be was accessible via an entrance from the service lane[2]. A copy of the Basement Plan as extracted from Appendix 7 of Mr Liu’s Valuation Report for LDLR 3/2022[3] is attached to this Judgment as Appendix 1. Each of these hatched red portions comprised a yard of about 3.72 sq m and a roofed over area about 6.88 sq m covering the area of a lavatory and a staircase leading from the ground floor shop above. 10.Next to the hatched red portion immediately underneath the shop at G/F, No 145 Queen’s Road West or G/F, No 147 Queen’s Road West above was identified by Mr Liu as the hatched blue portion each of which he found was a room used for storage purpose. However, these hatched blue portions of the Basement were supposed to be earth filled by reference to the approved building plan. The Occupation Permit was silent on the existence of the Basement and so were the corresponding Deeds of Mutual Covenant of the buildings at Nos 141-151 Queen’s Road West. 11.The total site area occupied by Wing Cheung Building was about 4,009.16 sq ft[4] (372.45 sq m). It lay within an area zoned “Residential (Group A) 7” on the Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan (HPA 3) Outline Zoning Plan No S/H3/34 which was published by the Town Planning Board on 3 November 2020[5]. Under this zoning designation, a maximum building height of 130mPD would be permitted for sites with an area of 400 sq m or more, whereas maximum building height for sites with a smaller area, for example the area occupied by Wing Cheung Building, would be restricted to 110mPD only. The Resumption 12.By a notice of resumption dated 26 February 2021 and published in Gazette Notice No 1058 (“the Notice”)[6], the Respondent on behalf of the Government of Hong Kong SAR informed the 145 Applicants and the 147 Applicants that the land on which this terrace of tenement buildings together with those at Nos 129-139 were to be resumed for the implementation of Development Scheme C&W-006 (“the Development Scheme”) by the Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”). The latter is a statutory body established under the Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance, Cap 563 to undertake, encourage, promote and facilitate urban renewal of Hong Kong, with a view to addressing the problem of urban decay and improving the living conditions of residents in old districts. 13.A copy of the resumption plan that showed the area of land resumed is at Appendix 2[7]:
14.By reference to the resumption plan, the Development Scheme included Wing Cheung Building at Nos 141-151 Queen’s Road West and in addition, the buildings at Nos 129-139 Queen’s Road West, a football field and In Ku Lane Refuse Collection Point. The site area of Wing Cheung Building, being 372.45 sq metres, was therefore much smaller than that of the Development Scheme. 15.On the expiration of three months from the date of affixing of the Notice to the area to be resumed as gazetted, the land including that with Wing Cheung Building erected thereon reverted to the Government of Hong Kong SAR on 27 May 2021 which is the date of valuation (“the Resumption”). 16.Prior to the acquisition by URA or to the Resumption, the ownership of the various units of Wing Cheung Building was as follows:
17.As can be seen from the above, prior to the acquisition by URA, Wing Cheung Building was in scattered ownership with no one owner, in particular, owning more than 2 units in any of the buildings at 141, 143, 145, 147, 149 or 151 Queen’s Road West. Notwithstanding the above, Ms Cheng Ching, a factual witness called by the Applicants, was able to recognise that Ms Or Pui Ying Peranza, whose ownership was highlighted in the above tables, is related to a real estate developer, Kowloon Development Company Limited (Stock Code in Hong Kong Stock Exchange: 34)[15]. The 145 Property 18.By reference to the Joint Statement dated 8 November 2024 prepared by Mr Liu and Ms Ng Hung Mui (“Ms Ng”), the latter being the valuation expert appointed by the respondent, the 145 Property comprised a saleable area of 33.15 sq m, including a balcony in the front and a kitchen & toilet area at the rear. In addition, the 145 Property comprised a roof above that extended to 28.37 sq m. 19.The two valuation experts agreed that the unit value of the roof was equivalent to 1/8 of that of the 5/F. Thus, the effective area of the 145 Property comprising the Roof as a whole had been agreed at 36.70 sq m. The 147 Property 20.Similarly, Mr Liu and Ms Ng agreed that the 147 Property comprised a saleable area of 33.15 sq m on 5/F, including a balcony in the front and a kitchen & toilet area at the rear. 21.In addition, a flat roof of 16.17 sq m (“hereinafter referred to as the “147 Flat Roof”) was connected to the Property through a door at a small verandah off the kitchen at the rear of the Property[16]. This 147 Flat Roof was not however included in the first assignment of the 147 Property and is admitted by Mr Liu to be a common part of the Building. More particularly, there existed a Notice No WC/TA03280/07/HK-M03N issued by the Building Authority dated 28 May 2008 which required demolition of a structure erected on the 147 Flat Roof in contravention of the Buildings Ordinance[17]. Legal Basis of Compensation 22.Pursuant to section 10(1) of the LRO, the Tribunal shall determine the amount of compensation (if any) payable in respect of a claim submitted to it under section 6(3) or 8(2) “on the basis of the loss or damage suffered by the claimant due to the resumption of the land specified in the claim.” Pursuant to section 10(2)(a), this is to be determined on the basis of “the value of the land resumed and any buildings erected thereon at the date of resumption” (underline added). 23.Further, pursuant to section 12(d) of the LRO, subject to the provisions of section 11 and to the provisions of paragraphs (aa), (b) and (c) of this section, “the value of the land resumed shall be taken to be the amount which the land if sold by a willing seller in the open market might be expected to realize”. 24.More particularly, under section 12(c) of the LRO, “no compensation shall be given in respect of any expectancy or probability of the grant or renewal or continuance, by the Government or by any person, of any licence, permission, lease or permit whatsoever: Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any case in which the grant or renewal or continuance of any licence, permission, lease or permit could have been enforced as of right if the land in question had not been resumed” (underline added). The Applicants’ Basis for Compensation 25.For the present proceedings, Mr Liu had prepared two valuation reports for each LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022, one dated 10 May 2022 and the other dated 2 May 2024. Valuation Reports dated 10 May 2022 26.In his Valuation Reports dated 10 May 2022, Mr Liu stated his instructions from client was “to assess the apportionment of the redevelopment value (RDV) as at 26th May, 2021 on vacant possession basis of Nos 129, 131, 133, 135. 137. 139. 141. 143, 145, 147, 149 and 151 Queen’s Road West, Hong Kong (“the Redevelopment Site”) attributable to” the 145 Property or the 147 Property respectively. There was no mention of the statutory basis of the valuation under the LRO in either of these Valuation Reports dated 10 May 2022. 27.Owing to Mr Liu’s oversight as a professional valuer on resumption matters or that of those instructing him, Mr Liu failed to address in his Valuation Reports for LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022 that ever since Cheung Lai-wan & Others v Director of Public Works (1977) HKLTLR 14 that this assumption for redevelopment must be warranted in the first place. At p 17 of Cheung Lai-wan, the Tribunal stated:
28.Mr Andrew Mak (“Mr Mak”), leading Ms Jamie Pang for the Applicants, had tried to come to Mr Liu’s rescue by referring to Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418, a High Court of Australia decision as support for his argument that the market value of the land at the valuation date would be expected to reflect whatever development potential the land has. However, as stated in Cheung Lai-wan, this development potential must be proved to exist as at the valuation date. 29.More importantly, in assessing “the apportionment of the RDV of the Redevelopment Site attributable to” the 145 Property and the 147 Property respectively, Mr Liu paid no regard or made any reference to the Court of Appeal judgment in Siu Sau Kuen v Director of Lands [2013] 5 HKC 567, where Fok JA (as he then was) stated the test of potentiality for redevelopment that may exist as at the date of the resumption at §34:
30.Mr Mak tried also to rely on other authorities, including:
to argue the development potential. Again, this development potential must be proved on the evidence to exist as at the valuation date instead of suggesting that every old building must have a market value that can reflect development potential. 31.Mr Mak went on to suggest that, given one is concerned with the possibilities of the land instead of its realised possibilities, there is no reason why those possibilities, unless those possibilities were immaterial or mere speculation as at the relevant valuation, should not be reflected in the valuation of the resumed property by way of a discount approach. 32.Unfortunately, Mr Mak’s approach has been overruled by the Court of Final Appeal in Dragon House Investment Ltd & Another v The Secretary for Transport [2005] 4 HKLRD 480, (2005) 8 HKCFAR 668 (“Dragon House”). At §§35, 40-41, Lord Millett NPJ stated:
33.The postulation of Mr Mak contradicts the concept of market value as defined by the valuation profession. According to the prevailing Hong Kong professional valuation standards published by the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, the possibilities or hope value as the case may be can only be included as part of the market value when there is a reasonable prospect as reflected by at least 50% chance of success that the land can be put to use. Apparently a mere chance is not accepted by the professional body unless the probability threshold can be met:
34.The reference to “at least 50% chance” was also adopted in various other jurisdictions such as in Canada. In Farlinger Developments Limited v Borough of East York (1975) 9 OR (2d) 553, 61 DLR (3d) 193, 8 LCR 112, the issue was whether the appellant could reasonably expect a change in zoning permitting development as desired as the basis of determining compensation for the market value of its land which had been expropriated. Howland JA of the Court of Appeal of the Ontario Supreme Court of Canada held at §38 that:
The Canadian Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence upon which the Land Compensation Board could properly find that there existed a probability of favourable zoning instead of a mere possibility. 35.Runnymede Development Corporation Limited v City of Oshawa (1982) 36 OR (2d) 582, 135 DLR (3d) 647, 25 LCR 105 concerns an appeal by the municipality from a decision of the Ontario Land Compensation Board which, based on the evidence of an expert who assigned a 20% risk factor on the prospect of a development, decided that “a willing buyer would still have deducted 50 per cent for the attendant risk”. The Divisional Court of Ontario considered the Land Compensation Board’s reference of the development having “a distinct possibility” could not be elevated to “probability” as in the case of Farlinger Developments. 36.And insofar as Mr Mak has relied on Spirerose and the Indian case, these two cases had already been considered by the Court of Appeal in Siu Sau Kuen, when the test of potentiality for redevelopment as stated in §29 above was pronounced. At §35, Fok JA (as Fok PJ then was) stated as follows:
37.We share those observations. In fact Spirerose concerned an appeal to the House of Lords which overturned decisions of both the English Court of Appeal and Lands Tribunal. The English Tribunal found that planning permission for a valuable re-development in respect of the resumed land was likely to have been granted, though by no means certain[19]. But the English Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of a valuation of land not on the footing that permission would probably have been granted but on the footing that it would have been granted[20]. The English Tribunal attributed a valuation of £608,000 for the latter footing but only £400,000 to the former one which reflected only a “hope value”. According to that recited by the House of Lords, this “hope value” was on the basis that “permission is not as a matter of law to be assumed and only hope value is to be taken into account.”[21] The House of Lords considered in the circumstances it would be wrong to award on the basis of 100% certainty of redevelopment[22]. A discount rate with only hope value should be awarded to reflect the chance that permission would not have been granted – a concept now proposed by Mr Mak. 38.However, in Spirerose, the English Lands Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that permission was likely, namely on a balance of probability or more likely than not, to be available to the applicant. The House of Lords only considered that in the circumstances, it was not right for compensation to be awarded as if such permission had been granted. Discount in the form of hope value was therefore appropriate. Spirerose does not support the proposition that a hope value should be awarded for any likelihood of redevelopment even if it is less than 50%. Before hope value was to be awarded the English Tribunal in Spirerose was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the redevelopment was likely, though not yet granted. The House of Lords did not disturb these underlying findings. 39.The question of whether the loss of chance as commonly adopted in area of tort should be introduced in the area of land compensation was also discussed in Spirerose. The views expressed in Spirerose were in fact clearly against such a tort rule being introduced in the area of land compensation. Suffice to say that at §42, Lord Walker rejected this idea and had this to say:
40.Lord Walker further set out certain views of Carnwath LJ expressed in Gregg v Scott and questioned the distinction made by Carnwath LJ as being arbitrary, at §44 as follows:
Lord Walker’s views were supported by all members of the House[23]. 41.The English Court of Appeal in Spirerose took the view that there is no anomaly in giving a hope value even where there would have been a possibility but less than a probability of a planning permission[24]. Lord Collins then went on to find that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to come to the conclusion it did at paragraph 130 of Spirerose:
42.Lord Neuberger also discussed the deficiencies of the Court of Appeal decision. At paragraph 61 of Spirerose, Lord Neuberger stated:
43.In our view Spirerose does not support the contention of submission by Mr Mak. Quite the contrary, it is in line with local authorities such as Siu Sau Kuen which requires the re-development, and in the present case, the interpretation proceedings having a prospect of success on a balance of probability before a hope value can be attached. 44.It is the Tribunal’s view that the test for the “hope value” is on a balance of probabilities. By reason of Siu Sau Kuen hope value, which reflects a redevelopment potentiality of a piece of land, will not be included unless and until that redevelopment potential can be established on a balance of probability. Adopting Mr Mak’s argument would be tantamount to saying that a developer who has acquired 40% of the interest in a building may have a high chance of achieving redevelopment if all remaining owners are willing sellers, and a developer who has acquired 70% of the interest does not necessarily enjoy a higher chance if the remaining owners refuse to cooperate. Plainly not. 45.The evidence was woefully inadequate. Mr Liu simply stated the following in his Valuation Reports dated 10 May 2022, before he jumped to the “Valuation of RDV” in the next paragraph:
46.While Mr Liu admitted during cross-examination that the above description was general in nature, he tried to supplement the above by the following[25]:
47.Save for (4) & (5), the above descriptions can be applied elsewhere in the urban areas of Hong Kong, particularly in Shau Kei Wan and Sham Shui Po. The latter in fact is the neighbourhood of resumptions promulgated by the URA in Siu Sau Kuen v Director of Lands, LDLR 1/2010 (unreported, dated 9 March 2012) and Chan Shiu Chong & Others v Director of Lands, LDLR 1-3/2012 (unreported, 19 November 2018) respectively where appeals to the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong were both dismissed on 31 July 2013[26] and 11 July 2019[27]. 48.It must be wrong for Mr Liu to assume that all buildings of similar old ages and site areas in the entire Sai Ying Pun district had redevelopment potential “likely within a reasonably foreseeable time scale”. Indeed, similar assertions were rejected in Siu Sau Kuen and Chan Shiu Chong at §25, supra. 49.Para 8.1.7 of the HKIS Valuation Standards 2024 (or its predecessors) published by the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors provides also that:
50.Mr Liu failed to state in his Valuation Reports for LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022 both dated 10 May 2022 that “to assess the apportionment of the redevelopment value (“RDV”) as at 26th May, 2021 on vacant possession basis of the Redevelopment Site attributable to” the 145 Property and the 147 Property respectively was a special assumption as defined by the HKIS Valuation Standards 2024 (or its predecessors). Valuation Reports dated 2 May 2024 51.To be fair to Mr Liu, in his second Valuation Reports dated 2 May 2024, he did revert to the normal valuation process for the 145 Property or the 147 Property by making direct comparisons to transactions of individual units which we shall return to later in this judgment. 52.In this Valuation Reports dated 2 May 2024, Mr Liu did state his “Basis of Valuation” by reference to the LRO. However, for reasons unknown, Mr Liu left out section 12(c) of the LRO which is an important provision of the LRO that had to go twice to the Court of Final Appeal for clarification in Director of Lands v Yin Shuen Enterprises Ltd & Another [2003] 2 HKLRD 399, (2003) 6 HKCFAR 1 (“Yin Shuen”) and later in Dragon House. 53.The professions should be aware of this important provision and other provisions of section 11 and paragraphs (aa), (b) and (c) of section 12 of the LRO. The Tribunal had remarked at §6 in Alliance Develop Limited v Director of Lands [2023] RVR 327 (“Alliance Develop”) that it was improper and not appropriate for the valuation expert in resumption cases to refer to the additional definition of “Market Value” as found in the HKIS Valuation Standards on Properties (Edition 2017) [30]. Section 5.1.5 of the HKIS Valuation Standards 2017, for instance, reads as follows:
54.Whereas section 12(d) of the LRO has clearly defined “the value of the land and any buildings erected thereon” in section 10(2)(a), the introduction of any other definition or supplement would only add uncertainty on the basis of valuation or create confusion and inconsistency or depart from the statutory jurisdiction. The Development Scheme – Pointe Gourde Principle 55.Perhaps misled by Mr Liu, Mr Andrew Mak, counsel for the Applicants, stated the following in his Opening Submission dated 18 August 2025:
56.Clearly from the above and as manifested during the trial, Mr Mak was not alerted by Mr Liu or otherwise that there is a well settled principle that compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land cannot include an increase in value which is entirely due to the scheme underlying the acquisition – the Pointe Gourde principle, which nomenclature was derived from the Privy Council decision in Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] AC 565. 57.This principle had been applied by the Tribunal since earlier cases which include Director of Lands & Survey v Wong Chung-don & Others(1977) HKLTLR 43 at 47-54 where land was acquired for the widening of Possession Street which lies not far away from the Development Scheme. 58.First, Mr Mak tried to distinguish URA from the Respondent who was responsible for publishing the Notice under section 2A of the Lands Resumption Ordinance. However, the URA was established pursuant to section 3 of the Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance, Cap 563. Under section 6(d)(i) of this Ordinance, the URA has the power to implement projects by way of a development scheme under section 25 by, for instance, applying to the Secretary for Development requesting her to recommend to the Chief Executive in Council the resumption, under the Lands Resumption Ordinance. Any distinction between URA and the Respondent as regards their power to resume land under the Development Scheme is misplaced. 59.Then Mr Mak attempted to distinguish the time before and after the Notice was published, arguing that if the Pointe Gourde principle be applicable, it would only apply after the Notice was published. This is what was accepted by the Court of Appeal in Shun Fung Ironworks Limited v Director of Buildings and Land, CACV 152 & 153/1992 and CACV 21 & 45/1993 (unreported, dated 17 December 1993). 60.However, in Director of Buildings and Land v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111, 136, the Privy Council disagreed. “A landowner cannot claim compensation to the extent that the value of his land is increased by the very scheme of which the resumption forms an integral part.” The Privy Council explained further at 138F-G:
61.Following from the above, in Lam Kit v Director of Lands, LDLR 15/1994 (unreported, dated 5 May 1995), the Tribunal stated at §11:
62.In Yuk Fong Investment Limited v Director of Lands, LDLR 1/2014 (unreported, dated 11 January 2016), the Tribunal remarked:
63.And more recently in Alliance Develop, supra, the Tribunal stated at §25:
64.Notwithstanding the above, the House of Lords did re-visit the Pointe Gourde principle in Waters & Others v Welsh Development Agency[32] [2004] UKHL 19, [2004] 1 WLR 1304. In the leading judgment, Lord Nicholls stated:
65.Lord Brown, agreeing with Lord Nicholls at §152, added:
66.Thus, by applying the Pointe Gourde principle, we are of the opinion that Mr Mak is prevented from relying on the existence of the URA Development Scheme itself to justify that either the 145 Property and the 147 Property or even Wing Cheung Building would have the potential for redevelopment in a no-scheme world. 67.When we conducted the joint site inspection on the 1st day of the trial, we observed that save for the Development Scheme as a result of which the buildings formerly standing thereon had been demolished, there are numerous 6-storey tenement buildings standing beside the Redevelopment Site or opposite it across Queen’s Road West. Mr Liu failed to draw to our attention to this important fact in his Valuation Reports for LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022 both dated 24 May 2022[33]. Even in his Supplemental Note revised on 18 September 2025[34], Mr Liu referred to so-called redevelopments of tenement buildings between 2018-2022, including:
68.Save for Nos 78-80 Queen’s Road Westand The Queens at Nos 150-162 Queen’s Road West, however, these so-called redevelopments of tenement buildings are nowhere in the vicinity of Wing Cheung Building as shown in the map at Appendix 3[35]. 69.As stated in §29 above, Fok JA (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal in [2013] 5 HKC 567 stated the test of potentiality for redevelopment should include evidence of redevelopment in the vicinity of the resumed property. 70.At the request of the Tribunal, Ms Ng summarised the ownership record of those adjoining sites or others in the vicinity as follows (with the date of acquisition by the prevailing owner either shown in parenthesis or in the corresponding column):[36]
71.In the above table, the units shaded green are all registered in the ownership of Or Pui Ying Peranza who, will be referred to further below, is closely related to the real estate developer, Kowloon Development Company Limited (Stock Code in Hong Kong Stock Exchange: 34)[37]. 72.Mr Mak was simply repeating his arguments in Siu Sau Kuen v Director of Lands, LDLR 1/2010, at §§26-30 where the Tribunal was determining the amount of compensation for resuming only 1/6th share in the lot concerned:
73.At §42 of the judgment, the Tribunal ruled that:
74.Also, the many transactions in those old buildings in the vicinity show that Mr Mak had gone too far to suggest at §22(b) of his Closing submission that:
75.Those buildings, some units of which were acquired by Or Pui Ying Peranza or Or Pui Kwan as the case may be in 2017 or thereafter, are still standing there at the end of 2025 with no sign of redevelopment taking place. More importantly, they did not continue to acquire more units in the buildings concerned but in fact others acquired other units in the buildings:
Evidence of Ms Cheng Ching 76.Ms Cheng Ching (“Ms Cheng”) is an estate agent licensed by the Estate Agents Authority. Ms Cheng was called to give evidence by the Applicants[41]. 77.According to her Witness Statement filed on 22 January 2024 for LDLR 3/2022, Ms Cheng has been working at Shun Cheong Estate Company since 2006. 78.Shun Cheong Estate Company carries on business at G/F, 191 Queen’s Road West, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong, so in close proximity to the Redevelopment Site. Its business includes assisting private property developers or their agents in acquiring old buildings over 40 years old in the Sai Ying Pun district. 79.According to Ms Cheng, she successfully completed the acquisition project for the New World Development Group, also a real estate developer listed in Hong Kong Stock Exchange, in 2017 at Nos 8, 8A, 10 and 10A Water Street, as well as Nos 145, 147 and 149 Third Street (“the Water Street project”) [42]. 80.Ms Cheng stated that before 2016, several private real estate developers expressed interest in the following sites in the Sai Ying Pun district:
81.Upon cross-examination by Mr Harrison Miao (“Mr Miao”), counsel for the Respondent, it was revealed that Ms Cheng had mistaken URA as a private real estate developer. If URA be disregarded as a private real estate developer, Ms Cheng was in fact referring to two private real estate developers instead[45], one of them was New World Development Company Limited and the other was Tai Hung Fai Group Company Limited. 82.Whereas Ms Cheng stated in her Witness Statement dated 19 January 2024 either for LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022 that in mid-2016, a private real estate developer, through her, suggested to the two Applicants in LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022 to acquire the 145 Property and the 147 Property for $8,000,000 each, Ms Cheng confirmed during re-examination that the developer was New World Development Company Limited[46]. 83.Ms Cheng remembered that at that time, the property market was on the rise, and the 145 Applicants and the 147 Applicants counter-offered $10,000,000 each. Although the private real estate developer, namely New World Development Company Limited indicated that the price of $10,000,000 was acceptable, it had to wait for the responses from the owners of nearby sites. More particularly, the private real estate developer was making acquisition proposals to several other owners of Wing Cheung Building through Ms Cheng. 84.In fact, no agreement for sale and purchase for the 145 Property or the 147 Property, provisional or otherwise was signed. The Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase as attached to Ms Cheng’s Witness Statement dated 19 January 2022 was in respect of a property far away, elsewhere at G/F, No 149 Third Street[47] though also in the Sai Ying Pun district. More importantly, even if a Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase were signed, like that for G/F, No 149 Third Street, there would be a Special Condition that allows the developer to withdraw[48]:
85.The Tribunal has witnessed many such withdrawal, say in Starex Development Limited v Yau So Ching & Others, DCCJ 2372 & 2374/2021 (unreported, 13 February 2023) and more recently in Victory Super Limited v Loi Wai Yung & Others, LDCS 2000/2023 (unreported, dated 30 September 2025) and similarly in Trillion Star (Asia) Limited v Gain Fortune Corporation Limited, CAMP 95/2025 (unreported, dated 3 December 2025). Thus, even if a provisional agreement for sale and purchase be signed, there is no guarantee that the sale would proceed. 86.In any event, according to Ms Cheng, New World Development Company Limited did not continue to consider the acquisition of the Queen’s Road West project for the following reasons[49]:
87.On the other hand, Ms Cheng reported to New World Development Company Limited that the owners of the Water Street project were more willing to sell their units at reasonable prices and therefore New World Development Company Limited’s interest and attention had been diverted to the acquisition of the Water Street project where the prices of units appeared to be less expensive and acquisition time might be shorter[51]. That acquisition was completed in around May 2017[52] but New World Development Company Limited did not come back to consider acquiring the Queen’s Road West project. 88.As regards Nos 99-101 Des Voeux Road West, the acquisition was made by another private real estate developer, Tai Hung Fai Group Company Limited who, according to Ms Cheng, was only interested in redevelopment for commercial premises[53]. Therefore, Tai Hung Fai Group Company Limited was not interested in the acquisition of the Queen’s Road West project, for instance[54]. 89.Then came the notice of acquisition promulgated by URA in March 2018 and no other real estate developer would be willing to make higher bids for the acquisition of the Queen’s Road West project[55]. 90.In her Supplemental Witness Statement dated 2 April 2024, Ms Cheng mentioned she had successfully completed deals of units in Wing Cheung Building, the last one being a leasing of a unit in Wing Cheung Building. 91.While Ms Cheng confirmed during cross-examination that she had assisted in the sale of 6 units in Wing Cheung Building, including the following, none of which were connected with any private real estate developer[56]:
92.During cross-examination by Mr Miao, Ms Cheng explained how she assisted a client who is a real estate developer intending to carry out an acquisition of sites for redevelopment[57]:
93.Ms Cheng explained that in Stage One of the acquisition process, a private developer would first approach estate agents in the vicinity of its intending project to alert it in case any prospective sales of units in the intending project were forthcoming[58]. But unfortunately, the initial responses from the owners of units in the Queen’s Road West project were not so promising and New World Development Company Limited refused even to commit to Stage One of the acquisition process[59]. 94.Therefore after 2016, her attention was mostly directed to the negotiation on the sale of units in the Water Street project. Nevertheless, Ms Cheng was aware that there were people still interested in acquiring units in Wing Cheung Building until 2018 when URA promulgated the Development Scheme[60]. 95.In this regard, Ms Cheng was questioned on her view why Ms Or Pui Ying Peranza (“Ms Or”) would still have purchased two units in Wing Cheung Building, one being 4/F, 143 Queen’s Road West on 5 May 2017[61] and another being 2/F, 145 Queen’s Road West on 29 January 2018[62] at $4,900,000 and $5,200,000 respectively. Ms Cheng answered that Ms Or might not be aware of the Development Scheme by URA and in any event, in her opinion, the purchase prices were not expensive[63]. 96.Ms Cheng further conceded that Ms Or had been her past client and had purchased a lot of units in the vicinity on speculation of redevelopment (落釘[64])[65]. As far as Ms Cheng was aware, Ms Or has been doing the same from 136 Queen’s Road West to 206 Queen’s Road West[66]. For instance, Ms Or had previously acquired units along Pokfulam Road, then transferring her units to a limited company which developed the residential development project at No 63 Pokfulam Road[67]. Evidence of Ms Yeung Choi Chu 97.Ms Yeung Choi Chu (“Ms Yeung”) is one of the 145 Applicants and one of the 147 Applicants. In fact, she was one of the tenants-in-common of the 145 Property and the 147 Property. 98.Ms Yeung prepared a Witness Statement for each of LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022 both dated 19 January 2024[68]. She stated that she obtained a law degree in 2008 and has been a legal executive since 1989. In 1997, Ms Yeung joined Messrs Yip & Partners and has been in charge of the Conveyancing Department since then. She said she had acquired experience in cases concerning compulsory sale and land resumption cases over the years. 99.Ms Yeung also said she had read the Witness Statements of Ms Cheng dated 19 January 2024 and agreed that their contents were correct to her best knowledge. 100.In respect of the 147 Property, although Ms Yeung had been aware that the 147 Flat Roof adjoining the 147 Property was not included in the Assignment in 2011, at the time of her inspection in September 2011 prior to the completion of the purchase, she understood from the vendor, Chow Shiu Kei, who was also known as Chow Kwong Kan ( “Mr Chow”) via Ms Cheng that Mr Chow had acquired the 147 Flat Roof as a result of continuous and exclusive possession by successive predecessors-in-title. Ms Yeung alleged that Mr Chow had specifically mentioned that he would not have allowed others to enter into the 147 Flat Roof if asked. 101.Ms Yeung stated also that at the time of inspection, the 147 Flat Roof was full of cartons with chattels inside, belonging to the then tenant, Ms Hung Ling[69]. However, leaving articles on the 147 Flat Roof would not constitute exclusive possession[70]. When she bought the 147 Property, she affirmed that she had taken possession of the 147 Flat Roof as well since her purchase. More particularly, she and the other tenant-in-common had let the 147 Property and the 147 Flat Roof to tenant(s) for rental income. 102.Ms Yeung intimated that as Wing Cheung Building was getting old, she was aware that the 147 Property might become a target for land resumption by the Government or an application for compulsory sale. As a precautionary measure, the Applicants included a special clause in all their tenancy agreements to the effect that no compensation would be provided to the tenant in the event of the 147 Property being acquired for redevelopment purposes, provided that 2 or 3 months’ notice was given to the tenant:
103.Ms Yeung further admitted in her Witness Statement dated 19 January 2024 that since about December 2014, wooden cubicle rooms had been erected on the 147 Flat Roof. However, Ms Yeung argued that the provision of these storage/ cubicle rooms did not involve any structural alterations, which was not unauthorised building works and was not contravening with the Buildings Ordinance. According to Ms Yeung, the cubicle rooms were assembled by plywood and were movable. 104.However, the above assertion by Ms Yeung is refuted by reference to §3.2.2 of Mr Liu’s Valuation Report dated 2 May 2024 which described that the 147 Flat Roof “was found used as a bedroom”[72]. That is particularly the case when we look at the photographs attached as Appendix 5 and Appendix 6 of Mr Liu’s Valuation Report[73]. Mr Liu found the 147 Property was “sub-divided into 3 smaller domestic units each with self-contained washroom. Two sub-divided units fronted Queen’s Road West and the third unit is situated mainly at the flat roof at the back”. It is hard to accept that “the third unit” with self-contained washroom on the 147 Flat Roof was not secured on the 147 Flat Roof by some permanent materials. 105.Section 14 of the Buildings Ordinance, Cap 123 requires consent in writing by the Building Authority for the commencement of the building works. The main issue here is therefore whether “the third unit” with self-contained washroom on the 147 Flat Roof was “building works” as defined in section 2 of the Buildings Ordinance. The latter states:
106.In Good Think Consultants Ltd v Attorney General & Another [1996] 4 HKC 782, there was installation of a structure supporting the air-conditioning plant mounted on a canopy at a restaurant. The structure was welded together and bolted to a concrete canopy. The structure, which was 3.2m long, 2.4 m high and 2m deep, could be removed but not easily. The court doubted if the plaintiff in that case had any intention of removing it. The court ruled that the structure was an addition to the building and therefore “building works” in terms of section 2 of the Buildings Ordinance. 107.We also note that whereas Ms Yeung claimedto be an experienced legal executive specialising in conveyancing, she stated in her Witness Statement for LDLR 3/2022 as follows[74]:
108.This assertion of title to the 147 Flat Roof had no legal basis and as Ms Yeung admitted later during cross-examination by Mr Miao, the Land Registry refused to register the Architect’s Certificate. 109.Ms Yeung also gave evidence that when she acquired the 147 Property, the asking price by the former owner was higher because of the presence of the 147 Flat Roof[75]. She made an offer a little higher than $2,700,000 but the asking price was $2,800,000. 110.In answering the question on who told her that the 147 Flat Roof was part of the 147 Property, Ms Yeung took some 15 minutes to give her reply[76]. 111.Ms Yeung appeared quite anxious to state her case that the 147 Flat Roof was part of the 147 Property by saying that the estate agent, Ms Cheng, said so and she herself had asked the former owner as well before and after the acquisition[77]. 112.As a result, the former owner, Mr Chow, provided her with receipts for the repair and maintenance of the water pipes on the 147 Flat Roof[78]. 113.For instance, portion of the receipt dated 15 April 2010 is repeated as follows[79]:
114.In our opinion, nothing in the above receipt could suggest that the former owner had occupied the 147 Flat Roof exclusively. The receipt did not show where in the 147 Flat Roof the works were carried out. Taken to the highest, the third item only mentioned installing balcony aluminium window and window grilles (裝露台鋁窗及窗花) and the ninth item related to changing white wall tiles at the toilet and balcony (換6”x 6”壯健身白瓦廁所及露台). 115.Mr Mak however tried to suggest otherwise by referring to “露台” which is emphasised above means “balcony” that could be related to the 147 Flat Roof. In such regard, Ms Yeung affirmed during re-examination that there was one balcony inside the 147 Property and that was referring to the 147 Flat Roof[80]. 116.To the contrary, as shown by the floor plan at Appendix 4 of this judgment, there was only one “balcony” in the front portion of the 147 Property which overlooked Queen’s Road West. That “露台” could not be regarded as the 147 Flat Roof. 117.Although Ms Yeung admitted that the 147 Flat Roof was not included in the assignment plan[81], she said she had taken advice from both solicitors and barristers[82]. However, she had not sought to prove possessory title by obtaining a declaration from court. Ms Yeung even claimed that her lawyer told her that there was no such need. Then Ms Yeung told the Tribunal that it was only some 2 or 3 years after her purchase of the 147 Property that she asked the question on whether there was any objection or lawsuit by the Incorporated Owners[83], contradicting her experience in conveyancing. 118.Ms Yeung asserted further that she knew that there was such enjoyment[84] although nothing was mentioned in the assignment. Later, Ms Yeung agreed it might be a title defect[85] but asserted that there had been no complaint[86] and no real risk of being sued[87]. 119.Nevertheless, the present claims by the Applicants are not a matter of conveyancing. By section 12(c) of the LRO “no compensation shall be given in respect of any expectancy or probability of the grant or renewal or continuance, … by any person, of any licence, permission, lease or permit whatsoever” unless such “grant or renewal or continuance of any licence, permission, lease or permit could have been enforced as of right if the land in question had not been resumed” (underline added). 120.In Yin Shuen, supra, the Court of Final Appeal remark at §53:
121.For Ms Yeung to say that in order to avoid any further dispute, she had appointed an Authorised Person under the Buildings Ordinance to provide an Architect’s Certificate to confirm that the 147 Flat Roof was part of the 147 Property does not reflect her experience. No wonder the Land Registry refused to allow this Architect’s Certificate to be registered. 122.According to Ms Cheng, who claimed that she had been familiar with Wing Cheung Building because of her past experience in dealing with sales or lettings of units in Wing Cheung Building[88], there was a basement unit underneath each of the buildings at Nos 141-151 Queen’s Road West. They were then occupied for storage purposes. 123.In respect of the basement units, Ms Yeung acknowledged that each of them was accessible via the rear alley (which was a common part of the Building) running along the north-west side of Wing Cheung Building in parallel to Queen’s Road West. 124.Ms Yeung had been the Chairlady of the Incorporated Owners of Wing Cheung Building, No 145 Queen’s Road West from 2012 to 2021 for about 10 years and had been consulted by some owners on building management issues. Ms Yeung explained that she just took over as Chairlady from the former owner of the 145 Property[89]. She also got in touch with the URA then when the latter subsidised the renovation of Wing Cheung Building in 2014-2015. 125.According to Ms Yeung, there existed a basement at the 145 Building at an approximate size of 510 sq ft[90]. Upon the Resumption, many co-owners complained that the Government did not offer or make any compensation to all or any of the individual co-owners in relation to the basement. 126.However, as stated in §10 above, the Basement was never mentioned in the Occupation Permit of Wing Cheung Building or the corresponding Deeds of Mutual Covenant. The Basement or any portion of it was not assigned or designated for any person’s exclusive use and enjoyment under the corresponding First Assignments of Wing Cheung Building. Also, no equal and undivided shares had attached or were assigned to any of the basement portion in the 145 Lot or the 147 Lot. 127.Notwithstanding the above, by reference to section 2 of the Building Management Ordinance, Cap 344, the Basement should be common part of the Wing Cheung Building because:
128.Although Ms Yeung acknowledged that the Basement might be a common part[91], she argued that all co-owners should receive a share of a special value to it in the compensation. Ms Yeung’s argument is misconceived. Normally, in buying or selling a property in a building subject to a Deed of Mutual Covenant comprising common parts and common facilities, all the benefits or burdens due to the existence of common parts or common facilities would have been reflected in the purchase price; no separate value would be assigned to the common parts or common facilities. 129.A fortiori, the basement portion under the 145 Building was not located close to or connected to the 145 Property. Similarly, the basement portion under the 147 Building was not located close to or connected to the 147 Property. Neither of them was accessible by the common staircases but rather by a rear staircase that fronted onto the rear alley. 130.Ms Yeung tried to argue that the corresponding basement portion had been exclusively occupied for a long period by a third party and therefore as a co-owner, the 145 Applicants or the 147 Applicants should have a share of its value. We do not agree. We consider the 145 Applicants or the 147 Applicants could derive no separate value from the existence of the Basement. More particularly, the Basement was supposed to be earth filled which otherwise contravened the approved building plan for the Building[92]. Any value derived from it would be excluded by virtue of section 12(c) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance. 131.In 2021 when the Government resumed the lots on which Wing Cheung Building was erected, Ms Cheng received inquiries from various owners thereof but no one suggested that the Government did make an offer of compensation in respect of the basement units. 132.Notwithstanding the above, in case of any acquisition of Wing Cheung Building by a private real estate developer, according to Ms Cheng, the developer would make an offer for the acquisition of the basement to the owner of the corresponding ground floor unit immediately above instead of to the other owners[93]. Ms Cheng was making reference to the Water Street project. In response to an enquiry from the bench, the Respondent replied in two letters both dated 17 September 2025 that the basement portion under the 147 Building was occupied by 莫煥進trading as Chun Hing Plastic Bags Factory[94]. Incidentally, by reference to a tenancy agreement dated 1 January 2020 granted by Kei Wai Kay, one of the tenants-in-common of G/F, No 147 Queen’s Road, 莫煥進trading as Chun Hing Plastic Bags Factory was in fact the tenant of G/F, No 147 Queen’s Road West[95]. To a certain extent, this was confirmed by Ms Yeung herself when she found the Basement was filled with cartons and articles belonging to somebody, but not the Applicants[96]. 133.Similarly, by reference to a tenancy agreement dated 1 January 2019, the basement under the 145 Building was let out to a Mr Tong by Woo Chi Shing Peter, the registered owner of G/F, 145 Queen’s Road West[97]. 134.In any event, the use of the common parts in breach of the corresponding Deeds of Mutual Covenant should not attract compensation[98]. However in Mr Liu’s second Valuation Reports dated 2 May 2024, he simply assumed that in addition to the valuation of the 145 Property or the 147 Property, the 145 Applicants or the 147 Applicants could share 1/7 of the value of the Basement which was accepted by the 145 Applicants or the 147 Applicants as a common part. There is no valuation basis for Mr Liu’s assumption. 135.The 145 Applicants or the 147 Applicants had suffered no loss or damage when the Basement or that at No 147 Queen’s Road West was lost due to the Resumption. Basis of Compensation in the No-Scheme World 136.Ms Yeung confirmed that she became aware of the Development Scheme when the Development Scheme was first published in March 2018. In fact, Ms Yeung was aware of a Consultative Paper published by URA for that purpose[99]. 137.Subject to the No-Scheme world under the Pointe Gourde principle, we shall make reference to the test of potentiality for redevelopment promulgated by the Court of Appeal in Siu Sau Kuen v Director of Lands [2013] 5 HKC 567 at :
138.First, there was no actual proposals by the Applicants or any others to redevelop either 145 Property or the 147 Property. The same was true for the acquisition of Wing Cheung Building as any developer would have to negotiate with a large number of owners, rendering the assembly process more unpredictable and complicated. Each building which together constituted Wing Cheung Building consisted of 7 undivided shares. A developer would have to purchase nearly all shares in order to meet the statutory threshold of 80% under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance. 139.At one point in time, New World Development Company Limited was interested in the Queen’s Road West project as defined in §80 above. The site area of the project is larger than that being occupied by Wing Cheung Building alone. However, New World Development Company Limited’s interest was thwarted in 2016 by the difficulties as explained by Ms Cheng in §86 above. Certainly any prospective real estate developer would face the same difficulties. At least, there is no evidence that any other real estate developer was interested in taking over the Queen’s Road West project or acquiring Wing Cheung Building. The fact that the owners were willing to sell their interests to URA under the Development Scheme should be disregarded because the URA is backed up by the threat of compulsory acquisition under the Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance. If any of the owners refused to sell to the URA, the Government would be able to invoke its power to resume the remaining interest, just as happened in the present proceedings. 140.Ms Yeung alleged that there was another real estate developer who might be interested in acquiring the 145 Property or the 147 Property. However, she conceded that no price was offered[100]. She even declined to confirm whether it was in fact New World Development Company Limited who subsequently made the $8,000,000 for each property she co-owned[101]. 141.Of course, there is evidence that Or Pui Ying Peranza who is related to Kowloon Development Company Limited had acquired 4/F, 143 Queen’s Road West and 2/F, 145 Queen’s Road West in 5 May 2017 and 29 January 2018 respectively. Therefore, the 145 Applicants or the 147 Applicants suggested that Kowloon Development Company Limited would have been a prospective developer interested in redeveloping 143 Queen’s Road West or 145 Queen’s Road West on its own or merger of the 145 Property or the 147 Property with other properties likely within a reasonably foreseeable time scale. 142.However, there is also evidence that Or Pui Ying Peranza or her brother, Mr Or Pui Kwan, who is also one of the four Executive Directors of Kowloon Development Company Limited, had acquired units “in the vicinity of the resumed property”, including: Properties Acquired by Or Pui Ying Peranza:
Properties Acquired by Or Pui Kwan:
143.Mr Liu also conceded that there is no potential for some of these sites to be merged because they straddle across different sides of Queen’s Road West. 144.Thus, despite Or Pui Ying Peranza or her brother Or Pui Kwan who are related to Kowloon Development Company Limited having acquired so many units along this small section of Queen’s Road West (ie “in the vicinity of the resumed property”), all these low-rise buildings were still standing with no sign of redevelopment “likely within a reasonably foreseeable time scale” during our joint site inspection on 9 September 2025, being some 7-8 years after Or Pui Ying Peranza’s or Or Pui Kwan’s acquisitions. 145.We are not therefore persuaded that mere acquisition of 4/F, 143 Queen’s Road West[102] and 2/F, 145 Queen’s Road West[103] by Or Pui Ying Peranza can be regarded as evidence to prove that redevelopment of 143 Queen’s Road West or 145 Queen’s Road West on its own or merger of the 145 Property or the 147 Property with other properties was likely within a reasonably foreseeable time scale as at the date of Resumption on 27 May 2021. 146.In any event, Or Pui Ying Peranza owned only 2 units out of a total of 36 units in Wing Cheung Building or just 2/42nd of the shares in the lots on which Wing Cheung Building was erected. Contrary to what the Applicants suggest, the mere acquisitions by Or Pui Ying Peranza did not justify a finding of or evidence an intention of Kowloon Development Company Limited to assemble units in Wing Cheung Building for redevelopment. 147.More likely than not, Or Pui Ying Peranza has been one of those speculators interested in “落釘”, or “placing nails” by buying up in advance part of the ownership of an old building that is likely to be acquired, thus making it difficult to meet the threshold for compulsory sale, so they may then claim a large amount of compensation from a prospective developer. Although Ms Cheng was not a professional valuer, by her experience in the site assembly process, she gave evidence the purchase prices of Or Pui Ying Peranza were not expensive. 148.In Century Treasure Ltd v Or Pui Kwan [2024] 1 HKLRD 72, Or Pui Kwan was a minority owner in the compulsory sale application. Placing a “nail” in an old building would render it more difficult for another prospective developer to pursue the redevelopment of the building. 149.The Tribunal is also aware that Or Pui Kwan commenced a compulsory sale application on 18 January 2023 in respect of a building at Nos 35, 37, 37A, 37B, 39 and 39A Gough Street, ie Or Pui Kwan v Ching Po Yi & Another, LDCS 1000/2023, the order for sale of which was recently granted on 1 April 2026. This building at Gough Street lies behind Queen’s Road Central (instead of Queen’s Road West) far away from Wing Cheung Building in the Sheung Wan district, affirming to a large extent that Or Pui Ying Peranza or Or Pui Kwan has been scattering their investment interest over a very wide area. 150.It is apparent at least, Or Pui Ying Peranza did not consider herself a private real estate developer here. She sold 4/F, 143 Queen’s Road West and 2/F, 145 Queen’s Road West to URA on 11 December 2019 at $6,086,000 and on 3 January 2020 at $6,335,000 respectively. 151.Oi Pui Kwan also did not increase his stake by acquiring more units in the buildings that he acquired one or two units even when the opportunity clearly arose. For instance,
152.Thus, the purchases of units by Or Pui Ying Peranza or Oi Pui Kwan are a far cry from implementing redevelopment of the respective sites in the reasonably foreseeable future. 153.On the other hand, Mr Mak appears to suggest that private real estate developers might have been put off by the Development Scheme of URA. There has been no evidence of this sterilising effect:
154.Certainly, redeveloping either the 145 Building, the 147 Building or their combination alone is not viable because their respective sites are too small:
Even Mr Liu specifically conceded during cross-examination that he would not expect any developer to be interested in developing the two buildings alone given the limited site area and engineering difficulties in demolishing these buildings by themselves. 155.As demonstrated by Ms Ng, the valuation expert on behalf of the Respondent, in her Supplemental Expert Report dated 22 September 2025, the redevelopment potential under 3 different scenarios (including all the lots where Wing Cheung Building was erected thereon) would be substantially inferior to other successful redevelopments because of the requirements imposed by the Building (Planning) Regulations[104]. 156.As a matter of fact, the present claims by the 145 Applicants or the 147 Applicants are very similar to those in Chan Shiu Chong & Others v Director of Lands, LDLR 1-3/2012 (unreported, dated 19 November 2018). In that case, the Tribunal refused to assess the subject properties on the redevelopment basis upon applying the test in Siu Sau Kuen, taking into account, inter alia, the facts that[105]:
157.Therefore the open market value of the 145 Property or the 147 Property under section 12(d) of the LRO should be assessed on its existing use value without any redevelopment potential. 158.Then in Dragon House the Court of Final Appeal further explained at §14:
159.In that regard, Ms Yeung stated that she would not have sold the 145 Property or the 147 Property on that basis. However, in Siu Sau Kuen v Director of Lands, LDLR 1/2010, supra, the Tribunal remarked at §48:
Market Value of the 145 Property Pursuant to LRO 160.In Mr Liu’s Valuation Report dated 2 May 2024 at §4.3[106], he only stated his “Assumption of Valuation” on the basis of
161.However, as it turned out, the 145 Property was, as at the date of valuation, subject to a tenancy for a term of 1-year commencing from 9 September 2020 to 8 September 2021 at a monthly rent of $10,000 exclusive of management fee, Government rates and Government rent. 162.Mr Liu had not explained his basis of assumption though we agree that the number of months unexpired as at the date of resumption was not significant so that a term and reversion valuation may not be necessary. By virtue of the HKIS Valuation Standards 2024 or its predecessor published by the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, “assumptions” are matters that are reasonable to accept as fact in the context of the valuationassignment without specific investigation or verification. In cases where either the assumed facts differ from the actual facts existing at the valuation dateor that would not be made by a typical market participant in a transaction on the valuation date, the valuer should clearly identify the latter in his valuation report as a special assumption[107]. “Special assumptions may only be made if they can reasonably be regarded as realistic, relevant and valid for the particular circumstances of the valuation.”[108] 163.While the basis of valuation had not been clarified, Mr Liu relied on transactions in two projects, namely No 10 Water Street and Nos 1, 3, 5, 7 & 9 Eastern Street for the purpose of comparison. More particularly, he relied on transactions at 9 Eastern Street and arrived at the following valuations: 164.Regrettably, No 155 Third Street and Nos 8, 8A, 10 & 10A Water Street were the subject of a compulsory sale application, being Courage Investments Limited & Another v Go Sin Li & Others, LDCS 17000/2020 (unreported, 21 December 2021). Therefore, transactions in No 10 Water Street should be disregarded. The Court of Final Appeal in Dragon House ruled at §48:
165.Similarly, transactions at Nos 1, 3, 5, 7 & 9 Eastern Street should be disregarded as they were part of the bulk transactions made by a real estate developer for 15 residential flats and 3 shop units, intended for redevelopment. The original building was demolished in around 2020 and a new development which is known as 9 Eastern Street has taken its place comprising a 23-storey residential cum commercial building. Pre-sale of the residential units has commenced recently. 166.On review, on 29 September 2025, towards the end of the trial, Mr Liu prepared an alternative valuation on the basis of the following comparables[112]: 167.Mr Liu then made the adjustments below for the purpose of determining the adjusted unit rate of each of the comparables[115]:
168.Mr Liu then valued the 145 Property as follows: Saleable Area: 33.15 sq m x $164,010 = $5,436,932 Roof: 28.77 sq m x $20,501 = $589,814 $6,026,746 Say $6,030,000 169.Compared with Mr Liu’s previous valuation on the basis of transactions of 9 Eastern Street, his revised valuation represents a drop of 38%. This demonstrated that his previous valuation on the basis of transactions of 9 Eastern Street was unreasonably high or excessive. 170.On the other hand, Ms Ng adopted other transactions in the Sai Ying Pun district as comparables:
171.Ms Ng made the assumptions below for the purpose of determining the adjusted unit rate of each of the comparables:[117]
172.On the basis of the above, Ms Ng arrived at a valuation of $150,727 per sq m:[118]
173.Hollywood Building in which Comparable R1 is located and situated all the way up the sloping portion of Hollywood Road and is far away from its junction with Queen’s Road West which is a distributor in the district. The building comprises an 8-storey tenement building with 9 domestic units from each of 2/F to 7/F and commercial accommodation on G/F. While Hollywood Road is popular with art galleries, trendy cafes, chic bars and iconic heritage sites which are attractions for tourist, this section of Hollywood Road is relatively quiet. And perhaps because this section of Hollywood Road lies in close proximity to Tung Wah Hospital on Po Yan Street, one of the G/F units of Hollywood Building is occupied by a funeral parlour. Thus, in many respects, we agree with Mr Liu that this comparable is quite different from the 145 Property which lies on Queen’s Road West, which is a busy street. We do not consider it a good comparable. 174.Comparable R2 comprises a corner domestic unit on 4/F of a 6-storey commercial/residential tenement building of more modern design. The building lies on a section of Eastern Street which is a local access running perpendicular to Queen’s Road West. Although this section of Eastern Street is also sloping upwards from Queen’s Road West, this building at Nos 38-42 Eastern Street lies only about 30 metres from its junction with Queen’s Road West. We disagree with Ms Ng that this is an inferior location when compared with the 145 Property when their distances from the Sai Ying Pun MTR Station A1 exit are similar. This building enjoys a better condition and environment too, though its entrance is situated at a back lane. 175.In terms of location, Comparable R3 is similar to Comparable R1 except it lies closer to the junction between Hollywood Road and Queen’s Road West at approximately 80 metres away. No 236 Hollywood Road has erected thereon a 6-stroey tenement building with only one unit on each floor. This comparable enjoys a better environment because it faces the Hollywood Road Park on the opposite side of the street. Next to this building is a kindergarten though two funeral parlours lie further up the road. 176.18-20 Upper Station Street, at which Comparable R4 is located, comprises also a 6-storey tenement building situated on a side street or cul-de-sac leading off Hollywood Road (behind Hollywood Building in which Comparable R1 is located) to Blake Garden. In terms of environment therefore, Comparable R4 enjoys a more secluded environment than the 145 Property. 177.Comparable R5 lies furthest away from the 145 Property. For instance, it is located also within a 6-storey tenement building but on Second Street which is the 2nd street up the slope running parallel to this section of Queen’s Road West that is starting from No 228 to the further west. Situated immediately across the street is a relatively new commercial/residential development known as Island Crest which comprises some 488 residential units. 178.Subject to what we said above, doing the best we can on the evidence, we make the following adjustments to Comparables R2, R3, R4 and R5:
179.In comparison of the two valuations prepared by Mr Liu and Ms Ng, we prefer the comparables C and F adopted by Mr Liu because they all lie on Queen’s Road West. The number of adjustments required is smaller and the differences in the adjusted unit rates are not significant. 180.On the other hand, we consider the two acquisitions by Oi Pui Ying Peranza relevant at least as a check despite the significant time differences. We accept Ms Cheng’s evidence that the purchase prices paid by Ms Or were not expensive[120]. By reference to the Pointe Gourde principle, it is only the “increase in value” which is entirely due to the scheme that is to be disregarded. This being the case, the number of adjustments would be minimum. 181.In addition, in light of the many acquisitions of the tenement units in the vicinity of Development Scheme as stated in §70 above, we had requested the valuation experts to comment if any of those acquisitions could be used as comparables though they occurred after the date of resumption. In their 2nd Joint Statement dated 25 November 2025, they agreed or pointed out the various deficiencies of those transactions as comparables. 182.However, we note Oi Pui Ying Peranza acquired Unit B, 5/F & Roof, Teen Wo Building, 142-144 Queen’s Road West at a consideration of $5,330,000 across the street on 1 December 2022. This unit has a comparable saleable area of 35.05 sq m plus a roof of 16.79 sq m. Ms Ng found this transaction not useful as comparable because there was only an assignment dated 1 December 2022 without any preceding agreement for sale and purchase signed; she suspected that this transaction might not be an arm’s length transaction. 183.However, we are not persuaded by Ms Ng’s suspicion because the purchaser was Oi Pui Ying Peranza but the vendor was a Nip So Tsit who purchased the unit as long ago as March 2012 and does not appear to be related to Kowloon Development Company Limited. This transaction should be an arm’s length transaction and may serve well as a check. 184.The analysis of these 3 transactions is shown below:
185.In spite of the average of the above adjusted unit rates at $169,460, the significant time adjustments make the analysis less reliable, especially when the use of an index is over a longer period. 186.In such regard, we accept Mr Liu’s revised valuation at $6,030,000 (as stated in §168 above) as the market value of the 145 Property as at the date of resumption. Market Value of the 147 Property Pursuant to LRO 187.The 147 Applicants claim that the 147 Property included the right to exclusive use and possession of the adjoining 147 Flat Roof because the latter had been so occupied through their predecessors-in-title since 1969. Also, the only way to access the 147 Flat Roof was through the internal part of the 147 Property. 188.While Ms Yeung admitted that the 147 Flat Roof was not included in the Assignment in 2011, the 147 Flat Roof should be a common part of the 147 Building under section 2 of the Building Management Ordinance, Cap 344. 189.Although Ms Yeung tried to paint the picture that the 147 Flat Roof had been occupied through their predecessors-in-title since 1969 without interruption and without consent of anyone else so that it may satisfy the elements for adverse possession under section 7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347, Mr Mak agrees that the 147 Applicants had to prove ouster to show adverse possession. In Tang Tak Sum & Another v Tang Kai Fong, CACV 177/2013 (unreported, dated 28 November 2014) at §39, the Court of Appeal expressly disapproved any argument that where a co-owner is claiming adverse possession against the other co-owner, it is not necessary to prove actual ouster or dispossession. 190.To the contrary, Mr Mak cited Lai Wai Kuen v Wong Shau Kwong [200] 4 HKC 528 and Lin Hoi Hing v The Personal Representative of Lin Lok Shi also known as Lok Kiu, decease, HCA 1330/2013 (unreported, dated 30 October 2024) for the purpose to argue that ouster may be presumed where there had been a long and exclusive enjoyment by one co-owner. However, in these cases, the paper co-owners disappeared and could not be contacted for more than 20 years. Evidence as assessed on paper would be therefore sufficient to presume ouster because the persistent disappearance of the paper co-owners naturally showed that they had no intention to possess. In the present case, however, the other co-owners of the 147 Building had been always present. 191.By reference to Ms Cheng’s Supplemental Witness Statement for LDLR 3/2022 dated 2 April 2024, Ms Cheng was then in 2011 the estate agent who assisted Mr Chow in selling the unit to the Applicants[122]. By then the 147 Flat Roof was previously occupied together with the flat roof of the adjoining 1/F, 149 Queen’s Road West by Ping On Ointment Co, Ltd exclusively for storage purposes[123]. Also the 147 Flat Roof was then under cover to its full extent but not fully enclosed[124]. Even taking Ms Cheng’s evidence at the highest, the occupant of the 147 Flat Roof did no more than roofing the same for storage purposes. 192.Ms Yeung’s evidence about the situation before she purchased the 147 Property was at least confusing. Upon cross-examination by Mr Miao, Ms Yeung conceded that she did not know whether other co-owners had made requests to access the 147 Flat Roof before her acquisition. Ms Yeung however changed her answer in re-examination and stated that her predecessor-in-title had relayed the message to her via the estate agent that no request had been made. Even if the latter was the case, that could not amount to compelling evidence that the other co-owners did not intend to possess, or that Ms Yeung’s predecessor intended to oust the other co-owners. 193.We accept that the 147 Applicants or their predecessor-in-title, as one of the tenants-in-common in the 147 Building, can benefit from the use of the 147 Flat Roof (without erection of any structure in contravention of the Buildings Ordinance) so long as it was reasonable and incidental to their possession and enjoyment of the 147 Property. 194.Thus, given that:
even if the owner/occupant of the 147 Property had been occupying the 147 Flat Roof, there is insufficient evidence to prove that he had thereby ousted other co-owners. 195.Mr Mak also referred to So Kwai Chung v Wong Wai Ying Anita & Others (2025) 28 HKCFAR 243, in which one of the two tenants-in-common, D2, granted to the plaintiffs an “easement” or “right of way” which comprised a vehicular access over the two tenants-in-common’s land. At §58 of the judgment, the Court of Final Appeal stated:
196.However, the above remark would be applicable if the occupier does not oust the other co-owners. The Court of Final Appeal cited earlier in §37 Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234 at 237 where Denning LJ with whom Hodson and Parker LJJ agreed, explained the rights of co-tenants:
197.This statement of principle by Denning LJ recognises that the right of one tenant in common to deal with the land held in common is limited by the consideration that one tenant in common may not “take more than his proper share”[126] of the benefit of the land held in common. 198.The Court of Final Appeal also cited at §40 State of New South Wales v Koumdjiev (2005) 63 NSWLR 353 where Hodgson JA said at §40:
199.The Court of Final Appeal continued at §41:
200.The situation changed after the 147 Applicants, having acquired the 147 Property, enclosed and fitted out the 147 Flat Roof to become a bedroom with a self-contained washroom and granted a tenancy to a third person[127]. As stated in §104 above, Mr Liu found a sub-divided unit with self-contained washroom on the 147 Flat Roof. Ms Yeung also insisted during cross-examination that her tenant would not allow any outsiders to make use of the area of the 147 Flat Roof[128]. 201.Assuming what Ms Yeung did then amounted to ouster of the other co-owners since her purchase in September 2011, the dispossession fell short of the 12-year limitation period up to 27 May 2021, the date of resumption. 202.There is another significant hurdle for the 147 Applicants to claim adverse title over the 147 Flat Roof. The Court of Appeal in The Incorporated Owners of Mountain View Mansion v Heart Cuisine & Others[2012] 4 HKLRD 628, followingThe Incorporated Owners Of Man Hong Apartments v. Kwong Yuk Ching and others [2001] 3 HKC 116 and Incorporated Owners of No.27A Chatham Road Kowloon v Mr Lee or Unlawful Occupier (Lee Kai Kong) & Another, CACV 2238/2001 (unreported, dated 2 August 2002) held that sections 7(2) or 17 of the Limitation Ordinance which deal with recovery of land have no application when the one claiming adverse possession on a common part of a building is also an owner of the building subject to the same Deed of Mutual Covenant[129]. 203.In addition, compensation in respect of the 147 Flat Roof, if any, cannot include the value of the unauthorised building works, namely the sub-divided unit with self-contained washroom on the 147 Flat Roof which was not shown on the approved building plans or approved by the Building Authority. In Director of Lands and Survey v. Lau Kin and Chan Yau and Others [1977] HKLTR 95, 100, the Tribunal accepted any additions which had not had the approval of the Building Authority would not attract compensation because that compensation would be excluded by section 12(c) of the LRO. This was followed by Director of Lands and Survey v. Lee Yat Ping and Others [1977] HKLTR 138, at 143. 204.This principle of compensation was reaffirmed in Leung Man Cheong & Others v Secretary for Planning and Lands, HCAL 274, 376-382, 390-394, 396, 900-904, 906, 907, and 909-915/2000 (unreported, dated 14 September 2000) where Cheung J (as he then was) stated at §67 that;
205.Thus, the value attributable to the structure on the 147 Flat Roof, if any, would be excluded from the assessment of compensation. See also Chan Kai Yuen and Another v. The Director of Lands, LDLR 8/1999 (unreported, dated 1 September 2000) at §19. 206.Then the 147 Applicants referred to a rateable value having been assigned to the 147 Flat Roof and that rates were therefore payable by them. This does not assist them in determining compensation payable under the LRO. 207.In Wong Chee Sing v Hung Wah & Others [2025] 3 HKLRD 202 at §28, the Court of Appeal referred to Adverse Possession (2nd Edn) by Jourdan & Radley‑Gardner, where the authors stated:
208.That the Rating and Valuation Department did assess rateable value on a tenement and charge rates thereon does not constitute a licence or release from Government lease. The Full Court of Hong Kong in Re A Compensation Board, ex parte Attorney General [1971] HKLR 338, 349, 363, 365, 370 held that the payment of rates did not give the payor an equitable right to compensation for the relevant part upon resumption. 209.In Cheung Man Yee v Commissioner of Rating and Valuation, LDRA 41/1984 (unreported, dated 12 July 1985), the premises subject to rating assessment was also on 1/F with a flat roof which had been converted to accommodate an illegal structure. The Tribunal stated as follows:
210.Cheung Man Yee was recently followed in Law Kam Sheung Dennis v Commissioner of Rating and Valuation, LDRA 14-16/2023 (unreported, dated 29 September 2023). The Tribunal then stated at §76:
211.Notwithstanding the above, Mr Liu suggested that as the 147 Flat Roof was only accessible through the Property, the occupier could in reality enjoy exclusive enjoyment or use of it with no disturbance from others. We agree. The fact that the owners of the 147 Property had advantages over other owners in access to a common part, such as the 147 Flat Roof, may attract an enhanced value. 212.For the sake of consistency, we would adopt the same set of comparables, namely Comparables C & F in §167 above for the purpose of determining the market value of the 147 Property as at the date of resumption:
213.Thus, the market value of the 147 Property is as follows:
Orders 214.Accordingly, we order that the Respondent do pay the 145 Applicants compensation for the resumption of the 145 Property in the sum of $6,030,000. 215.We also order that the Respondent do pay the 147 Applicants compensation for the resumption of the 147 Property in the sum of $6,280,000. 216.In respect of costs, as a matter of compensation principle, the Applicants are entitled to their costs notwithstanding the outcome of the determination. Thus, we make a costs order nisi that the Respondent do pay the costs of these proceedings to the Applicants, including all cost reserved, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed at the High Court scale if not agreed. 217.The matters of professional fees, interest, and any other ancillary and consequential matters shall be agreed between the parties, failing which any outstanding matter may be determined by the Tribunal on paper as necessary.
Mr Andrew Mak, leading Ms Jamie Pang, instructed by Messrs Yip & Partners for the Applicants Mr Harrison Miao, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
[1] See LDLR 3/2022: Bundle C/97. [2] See Bundle C/37 for LDLR 2/2022 or Bundle C/39 for LDLR 3/2022. [3] See Bundle C/39 for LDLR 3/2022. [4] This site area is shown on the Building Plan No G6/6 for Wing Cheung Building approved on 8 November 1967. [5] The area was similarly zoned “Residential (Group A)7” on its predecessor, ie Outline Zoning Plan No S/H3/31 gazetted on 15 December 2017. [6] See Bundle C/62-63 for LDLR 2/2022 or Bundle C/64-65 for LDLR 3/2022. [7] See Bundle C/103 for LDLR 2/2022 or Bundle C/108 for LDLR 3/2022. [8] See Bundle F for LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022. [9] Chan Chi Man Oliver is a solicitor, being a colleague of Yeung Choi Chu, one of the 145 Applicants and 147 Applicants. Hearing time on 22 September 2025 at 15:54. [10]See Bundle F for LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022. [11]See Bundle D2/290-331 for LDLR 2/2022. [12]See Bundle D1/188-230 for LDLR 3/2022. [13]See Bundle F for LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022. [14]See Bundle F for LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022. [15] According to the “List of Directors and their Role and Function” as announced by Kowloon Development Company Limited on 2 July 2025, Or Pui Kwan and Lam Yung Hei, being the brother and husband of Or Pui Ying Peranza respectively, are the two of the four Executive Directors ofKowloon Development Company Limited (Stock Code: 34). [16] See Bundle C/127 for LDLR 3/2022. [17] See Bundle C/78 for LDLR 3/2022. [18] Harding v Cardiff Corporation (1971) 219 Estate Gazette 885. [19] See [2009] UKHL 44 per Lord Neuberger at §49 [20] See [2009] UKHL 44 §6 per Lord Scott. [21] See [2009] UKHL 44 at §6. [22] According to Lord Walker, he regarded the English Lands Tribunal and Court of Appeal’s reasoning, taken to the extreme, is that if there is at the valuation date a 51% chance of planning permission being granted, that should be treated as a 100% certainty: per §38 of Spirerose. [23] Supported by Lord Scott: see §1; Lord Mance: see §46; Lord Neuberger: see §47 and Lord Collins: see §133. [24] See §103 of the House of Lords decision in Spirerose quoting certain paragraphs of Spirerose in the Court of Appeal. [25] See Exhibit A1. [26] This Court of Appeal decision has been reported as [2013] 6 HKC 557. [27] See Chan Shiu Chong & Others v Director of Lands, CAMP 54-56/2019. [28] “If the member does not have the required level of expertise to deal with some aspect of the valuation assignment properly, then he or she should decide what assistance is needed. With the express agreement ofthe client where appropriate, the member should then commission, assemble and interpret relevant information from other professionals, such as specialist valuers, accountants and lawyers.” [29] “The nature and source of any relevant information that is to be relied upon and the extent of any verification to be undertaken during the valuation process must be identified, agreed and recorded. For this purpose, ‘information’ is to be interpreted as including data and other such inputs.
[30] See also Data Key Limited v Director of Lands, LDLR 6/2019 (unreported, dated 11 July 2011) at §3. [31] A Comprehensive Redevelopment Area in Ma Tau Kok, Kowloon. [32] Incidentally, the set-up of the Welsh Development Agency was not dissimilar to the URA. The Welsh Development Agency was established under the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c. 70) with objectives which included improving the environment having regard to existing amenity. [33] With respect, the examples of redevelopment projects quoted by Mr Liu (as contained in Bundle G & H for either LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022) all scattered around the entire Sai Ying Pun district instead of in the vicinity of the subject. [34] See Bundle H/1-9. [35] https://www.ura.org.hk/f/project/2784/C%26W-006_Siteplan%28Web%29%201_1500a.pdf [36] See Bundle J/77-85. [37] According to the “List of Directors and their Role and Function” as announced by Kowloon Development Company Limited, Or Pui Kwan and Lam Yung Hei, being the brother and husband of Or Pui Ying Peranza respectively, are the two of the four Executive Directors ofKowloon Development Company Limited. [38] This entity also acquired 3/F & 4/F, 175 Queen’s Road West and 1/F, 16 Square Street on the same date. [39] The memorandum of agreement for sale and purchase and the assignment were signed on the same day. [40] These same owners also acquired Unit C, 4/F and Unit A, 3/F of the same building on 20 Mar 2025 and 27 May 2025 respectively. [41] Ms Cheng’s Witness Statement and Supplemental Witness Statement can be found in Bundle B/1-16 and B/138-145 respectively. [42] No 155 Third Street and Nos 8, 8A, 10 & 10A Water Street were the subject of a compulsory sale application, being Courage Investments Limited & Another v Go Sin Li & Others, LDCS 17000/2020 (unreported, 21 December 2021) whereas Nos 145, 147 and 149 Third Streetwere the subject of another compulsory sale application, being Sound Advice Property Limited & Others v Mok Wai Ching & Another, LDCS 18000/2020 (unreported, 21 December 2021). [43] This site was the subject of a compulsory sale application, being New Dorset Investments Limited v Leung Wing Hing Joss Sticks Factory (Hong Kong) Limited & Others, LDCS 30000/2018 (unreported, 9 June 2020). [44] In fact, the area covered by these lots was much lesser than the Development Scheme by reference to the resumption plan as attached at Appendix 1 of this judgment. [45] Hearing time at 12:12 on 22 September 2025. [46] Hearing time at 14:38 on 22 September 2025. [47] See Bundle B/8 for LDLR 2/2022 or for LDLR 3/2022. [48] See Bundle B/11 for LDLR 2/2022 or for LDLR 3/2022. [49] See §6 of Ms Cheng’s Witness Statement dated 19 January 2024 for LDLR 2/2022 at Bundle B/2-3 or for LDLR 3/2022 at Bundle B/3. [50] Hearing time at 14:43 on 22 September 2025. [51] Hearing time at 15:10 on 22 September 2025. [52] Hearing time at 14:52 on 22 September 2025. [53] Hearing time at 14:45-14:48 on 22 September 2025. [54] Hearing time at 14:51 on 22 September 2025. [55] Hearing time at 15:00-15:01 on 22 September 2025. [56] Hearing time at 10:42-10:46 on 22 September 2025. [57] Hearing time at 11:04-11:07 on 22 September 2025. [58] Hearing time at 15:08 on 22 September 2025. [59] Hearing time at 11:16 and 15:09 on 22 September 2025. [60] The Government Gazette for the commencement of the Development Scheme was first published on 16 March 2018. According to section 25 of Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance, the URA submitted the draft Development Scheme Plan of the Development Scheme to Town Planning Board for consideration. [61] The Agreement for Sale and Purchase was signed on 5 April 2017. See Bundle F/84 for LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022. [62] The Agreement for Sale and Purchase was signed on 8 January 2018. See Bundle D2/313 for LDLR 2/2022. [63] Hearing time at 15:01 on 22 September 2025. [64] “落釘” can be literally translated as “placing nails” by speculator buying up in advance part of the ownership of an old building that is likely to be acquired, thus making it difficult to meet the threshold for compulsory sale, and they may then claim a large amount of compensation from a prospective developer. See pp 198 & 208 of the Official Record of Proceedings on 17 July 2024 on the Resumption of debate on Second Reading of the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) (Amendment) Bill 2023: (https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2024/english/counmtg/hansard/cm20240717-translate-e.pdf) [65] Hearing time at 15:1322 on September 2025. [66] Hearing time at 15:19 on 22 September 2025. [67] Hearing time at 15:16 on 22 September 2025. [68] See Bundle B/20-28 for LDLR 2/2022 and Bundle B/20-32 for LDLR 3/2022. [69] See Bundle B/84 for LDLR 3/2022. [70] See Gotland Enterprises Limited v Kwok Chi Yau & Others, CACV 260/2014 (unreported, dated 19 January 2016) at §36. [71] Ms Yeung had just provided a copy of tenancy agreement dated 10 June 2019 which contained such clause, ie after the URA had announced the Redevelopment Scheme in March 2018 See Bundle B/91 for LDLR 3/2022. [72] See Bundle C/25 for LDLR 3/2022. [73] See Bundle C/37-38 for LDLR 3/2022. [74] See Bundle B/27-28 for LDLR 3/2022. [75] Hearing time at 10:06-07 on 23 September 2025. [76] Hearing time from 10:06 to 10:19 on 23 September 2025. [77] Hearing time at 10:15 on 23 September 2025. [78] Hearing time at 10:08 on 23 September 2025. [79] See Bundle D1/183 for LDLR 3/2022. [80] Hearing time at 12:30 on 23 September 2025. [81] Hearing time at 10:21 on 23 September 2025. [82] Hearing time at 10:23 on 23 September 2025. [83] Hearing time at 10:27 and 10:35 on 23 September 2025. [84] Hearing time at 10:36 on 23 September 2025. [85] Hearing time at 10:41 on 23 September 2025. [86] Hearing time at 12:43 on 23 September 2025. [87] Hearing time at 12:36 on 23 September 2025. [88] During cross-examination, Ms Cheng confirmed that the last transaction she did was a leasing of a unit in Wing Cheung Building in 2016 whereas altogether she did six sales including 4/F, 141 Queen’s Road West. [89] Hearing time on 22 September 2025 at 15:47. [90] By reference to Mr Liu’s Valuation Reports dated 2 May 2024 for both LDLR 2/2022 and LDLR 3/2022, he stated the area was about 502 sq ft (46.64 sq m). See Bundle C/29 for either LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022. [91] Hearing time on 22 September 2025 at 16:13. [92] See Appendix 2 of this judgment. [93] Hearing time on 22 September 2025 at 13:03-13:05. [94] See Exhibit R1 or more exactly Bundle J/9. [95] See Exhibit R1 or more exactly Bundle J/2. [96] Hearing time at 16:10 & 16:32 on 22 September 2025. See photographs at Bundle B/109-114. [97] See also Exhibit R1. [98] See Cheung Lin v Director of Lands, LDLR 1/2015 (unreported, dated 24 October 2016) at §§47-49. [99] See Bundle G/100-104 for LDLR 2/2022 or LDLR 3/2022. [100] Hearing time at 13:02 on 23 September 2025. [101] Hearing time at 12:54-56 on 23 September 2025. [102] Or Pui Ying Peranza sold this unit to URA on 11 December 2019 at $6,086,000. [103] Or Pui Ying Peranza sold this unit to URA on 3 January 2020 at $6,335,000. [104] See Bundle J/26-27. [105] See §§20-25 of the judgment. [106] See Bundle C/26 for LDLR 2/2022. [107] See para 5.2.9 – 5.2.10 of the HKIS Valuation Standards 2024. [108] See para 9.2.3 of the HKIS Valuation Standards 2024. [109] See Bundle C/197-198 for LDLR 2/2022. [110] See Bundle C/219 for LDLR 3/2022. [111] See Bundle C/220 for LDLR 3/2022. [112] See Bundle I/3-4. [113] ASP denotes Agreement for Sale and Purchase. [114] Assuming unit value of roof at 1/8 of that the floor underneath. [115] See Bundle I/5. [116] ASP denotes Agreement for Sale and Purchase. [117] See Bundle C/53-54 for LDLR 2/2022. [118] See Bundle C/136 for LDLR 2/2022. [119] This means at a 95% confidence level, the probability of the population mean value would lie between -1.96 and +1.96 standard deviation, ie $151,044 – 1.96 x $22,697 = $106,558 and $151,044 + 1.96 x $22,697 = $195,530. [120] In Cochrane v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] UKUT 395 (LC) at §49, the English Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) accepted that the claimant was entitled to rely on the opinion of a local estate agent experienced in his field, on the impact of the scheme on the value of the property in question in the housing market at the time it was written. [121] Adjustment on the basis of the Private Domestic Price Index for Class A published by RVD. [122] See Bundle B/139 for LDLR 3/2022. [123] Hearing time at 12:20 on 22 September 2025. According to the official website of Ping On Ointment Co., Ltd (https://pingonointment.net/en/about/), the company was relocated to the 1/F (二樓) of 147 - 149 Queen's Road West in March 1990. [124] Hearing time at 12:35-12:48 on 22 September 2025. [125] (1872) LR 5 HL 464. [126] [1955] 1 QB 234 at 237. [127] Hearing time at 12:48 on 22 September 2025. [128] Hearing at 11:59 & 12:08-09 on 23 September 2025. [129] For the avoidance of doubt, the Court of Appeal decision in Wong King Lim v The Incorporated Owners of Peony House [2013] 4 HKC 295 only applies to a squatter who is not an owner of the building subject to the same Deed of Mutual Covenant. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under LDLR 2/2022