Read the full judgment text of FACV 000001/2000 on BabelCite. This FACV judgment was delivered on 6 March 2001 before Li CJ, Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Litton NPJ, Mason NPJ.
Rating and valuation – Government rent – Government Rent (Assessment and Collection) Ordinance (Cap. 515) – Rent regulations – development sites, redevelopment sites and agricultural sites held under leases granted between 27 May 1985 and 1 July 1997 and extending to 30 June 2047 – 59 lessees previously paying nominal or no rent served with demands for 3% of rateable value under new legislation – whether Commissioner can ascertain rateable value of leased land not in rateable occupation – distinction between rateability and rateable value – proper construction of Rent regulation 2 – regulation 2 deems leased land a tenement liable for assessment to rates and leaves ascertainment of rateable value to sections 7 and 7A of the Rating Ordinance (Cap. 116) by virtue of s.8(2) of the Rent Ordinance – validity of regulation 2 under s.34(1)(a) and (m) of the Rent Ordinance – compatibility of s.8 and regulation 2 with Article 121 of the Basic Law – Article 121 does not confine 'rateable value' to the Rating Ordinance sense – appropriate basis of valuation under s.8 for development sites – hypothetical yearly tenancy under s.7(2); rebus sic stantibus principle in s.7A(2) – valuer may have regard to all intrinsic characteristics including likelihood of development (Dawkins v. Ash Brothers; Consett Iron) – validity of Rent regulations 4 and 5 (LARV formula) for redevelopment sites under s.34(1)(a), (b) and (f) – their compatibility with Article 121 of the Basic Law – power under s.8 and s.18(3) of the Rent Ordinance to ascertain rateable value of agricultural land exempt under s.36 of the Rating Ordinance – compatibility with Article 121 – legislative history from Crown Leases Ordinance 1973 through Annex III of the Joint Declaration, NTLEO (Cap. 150), Rent Conditions, and Basic Law to the Rent Ordinance 1997 supports wider meaning of 'rateable value' for rent purposes – Commissioner's appeal allowed, respondents' appeal dismissed, respondents to pay costs of appeals in Court of Final Appeal and Court of Appeal – matters to resume in Lands Tribunal except possibly the two agricultural sites.
Legal issues: Construction of Rent regulation 2 and ascertainment of rateable value of non-rateable leased land · Validity of Rent regulation 2 and s.34 of the Rent Ordinance · Compatibility of s.8 of the Rent Ordinance and regulation 2 with Article 121 of the Basic Law · Appropriate basis of valuation for development sites under s.8 of the Rent Ordinance · Validity of Rent regulations 4 and 5 (LARV formula for redevelopment sites) · Compatibility of regulations 4 and 5 with Article 121 of the Basic Law · Power to ascertain rateable value of agricultural land exempt from rates · Compatibility of s.8 and s.18(3) with Article 121 regarding exempt agricultural land
Outcome: The Commissioner's appeal was allowed and the respondents' appeal was dismissed. The orders and answers of the Court of Appeal were set aside and the preliminary points of law were answered substantially in favour of the Commissioner.