632 Claimants v. Housing Authority

HCMP000114/1998

HCMP114/98(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.114 OF 1998

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

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

Coram : Hon Sears, J. in Court

Dates of hearing : 15 and 16 September 1998

Date of judgment : 16 September 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. In 1996 I decided that the residents of Rennie's Mill were entitled to compensation. The only matters that had to be decided, first, whether or not persons were eligible for compensation, and secondly, if they were, what was the amount.

2. The Housing Authority had offered sums of money to the applicants which were not accepted. In March 1998, I gave judgment on a claim for compensation of a large number of the villagers. There were some disputes as to whether or not persons were eligible, but the main purpose of the decision was to examine the method of valuation for compensation.

3. Experts were called on both sides and the method of valuation was basically a hypothetical rental figure, this was because the right of the villagers was a right to occupy their land. To understand this, it is necessary to look at the history of the occupation of Rennie's Mill. This I set out in detail in my earlier judgment of 1996 how these persons were allowed to go onto the land and they developed it by their own means. The government provided the land for them to live on but did nothing else to help them. By their own efforts, they turned a barren piece of waste land into a thriving village.

4. In 1961, however, there was concern because of a new law called the Resettlement Ordinance. There were some 30,000 persons living there at the time, and they feared that their village was going to be redeveloped or they would be moved away. There were substantial protests and petitions given to the then Governor, Sir Robert Black. Because of that, letters were sent to the villagers from a Commissioner called Mr Morrison which promised them that they could stay there. The decision I reached was that the promise in 1961 was binding in law on the now government.

5. Things in Hong Kong change very quickly. Because of the large amount of people living in Hong Kong, it is necessary to build new housing. Proposals were therefore made for the redevelopment of a large area of land for New Junk Bay. This will be a very substantial development, housing for some 300,000 people will be provided; the Mass Transit Railway will be brought into the development; there will be schools built, recreation areas, parks and shopping centres. It was quite inappropriate for Rennie's Mill to remain as it was, therefore the occupiers were served with notice to quit their village. They were naturally upset at this. Although I am sure the village was a very happy village, it suffered from very serious drawbacks - it had no proper sewage, the access was poor, and the general environment in the buildings were poor. However, as I said, I am sure the villagers enjoyed living there.

6. I held, therefore, that if the government wanted to get rid of these villagers, they should pay them proper compensation, and in the judgment I have provided in March 1998, I assessed figures based on their rights of occupation, and also added a sum of money for decorating their new flats and providing certain basic equipment. The Housing Authority wished to pay them compensation based on the area of their actual permitted development. I however said that the area should be the larger area, namely, the area of the actual structure. The ultimate figure was, in my judgment, a fair compensation for their rights.

7. Although the villagers built their village and constructed the schools and the shops, nevertheless they never owned anything. The land really belongs to the people of Hong Kong. It is administered by the government, but it must be remembered that the land basically belongs to all those people who live in Hong Kong. Their right was a right to have a structure on the land and live their. They paid very low rents, much lower than the general rent level in Hong Kong. And as I said, they have never owned any land, their legal right was a right to occupy.

8. I now deal with these two applicants. They did not accept the approach of the expert called by a large number of the other villagers in the 1998 case. Madam Tong Tim Nui is an elderly lady and she has been represented by her son Mr Leung, and Mr Lee Hoi Man is joined with him. I adjourned those cases for the hearing today.

9. Their attitude is most surprising. Mr Leung says in one breath that he is not interested in the money, but in the other breath he says he wants $199 million. His and Mr Lee Hoi Man's claims are absurd. I consider they have wasted considerable public money and time in taking the attitude they have. They professed to have a love for this village, but all they appeared to have done, in my judgment, is cause, perhaps, discomfort amongst a number of elderly villagers. They said they would wish to call an expert, a gentleman came along who spoke to someone else's report which put a value on this land of $108.4 billion. That is a seriously flawed valuation. It is not necessary for me to decide what the value is. It is completely irrelevant to any valuation exercise.

10. Mr Lee Hoi Man was given a substantial sum of money and he accepted it. I think the Housing Authority have been very generous in offering any more money. Their apparent valuation is to say that the land is worth $108 billion, and then divide it by the number of residents. This really is nonsense and, as I said before, I consider they have wasted considerable time here.

11. Although professing a love for this village, in my judgment, their attitude is one of pure greed. I have no doubt at all that the method of valuation as proposed on the last occasion is the correct approach. As I said if the Housing Authority had not changed their attitude to Mr Lee Hoi Man, I would not have given him another dollar. Therefore, the figure I assess for compensation for Madam Tong Tim Nui is $434,575.93; and the extra money to Mr Lee Hoi Man, which I think he is lucky to get, is $318,411.68.

(R.A.W. Sears)

Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

Representation:

Madam Tong Tim Nui, represented by Mr Leung Chuen On, Applicant in Person

Mr Lee Hoi Man, Applicant in person

Miss Gladys Li, SC and Mr Peter Ng, inst'd by /s Simmons & Simmons, for the Respondent