Hui Sui Sam and Another v. Director of Public Works
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite..
1. This was an application, pursuant to Section 18 of the Mass Transit Railway (Land Resumption and Related Provisions) Ordinance Cap. 276, (hereinafter called "the Ordinance") for compensation, originally under Item 12 but by amendment also under Item 11 of Part I of the First Schedule thereof. These claims under Items 11 and 12 are founded on the applicants alleged loss in value to their property situate at Numbers 184-186 Wing Lok Street, Hong Kong and the additional cost of redesigning their
|
LDMT000003A/1982 Property law - compensation for additional piling costs and reduction in open market value of land resulting from alterations to foundation plans necessary to achieve compatibility with works or proposed or likely works for the construction of the Mass Transit Railway - statutory duty of authorised architect - whether Building Authority's refusals and imposition of conditions expressly have to invoke relevant statutory provisions - whether additional cost solely attributable to compliance with Building Authority's powers - assessment of additional cost and loss caused by reduction in open market value. Held : 1. Building Authority may exercise powers under Section 15 without expressly invoking precise relevant statutory provisions; 2. Additional costs were solely attributable to compliance with Building Authority's powers; 3. Additional costs and loss assessed at $601,729 - Sections 15,18, First Schedule Part I, Items 11 and 12 Mass Transit Railway (Land Resumption and Related Provisions) Cap. 276; Building (Administration) Regulations, Cap. 123. IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF HONG KONG Mass Transit Reference No. 3 of 1982
______________ Coram: TRIBUNAL: His Honour Judge Cruden, Presiding Officer Date: 8th day of June 1983 ADVISERS: J.M. Lyons, Esq., Chartered Surveyor and K.B. O'Sullivan, Esq., Chartered Architect, both appointed under Section 9(4) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance, Cap. 17. ------------------- JUDGMENT ------------------- 1. This was an application, pursuant to Section 18 of the Mass Transit Railway (Land Resumption and Related Provisions) Ordinance Cap. 276, (hereinafter called "the Ordinance") for compensation, originally under Item 12 but by amendment also under Item 11 of Part I of the First Schedule thereof. These claims under Items 11 and 12 are founded on the applicants alleged loss in value to their property situate at Numbers 184-186 Wing Lok Street, Hong Kong and the additional cost of redesigning their new building at that location, to avoid incompatibility with works or proposed works or likely works for the construction of the Mass Transit Railway. 2. At the mutual request of both parties I have already ruled, sitting alone on the preliminary issue, whether the provisions of the Ordinance were sufficiently retrospective to enable the claim to be brought under Item 12. On the 15th day of August 1982 I held that there was jurisdiction to hear this claim. I now further hold that the principles set out therein equally apply, on the instant facts, to a claim under Item 11. In my ruling on the preliminary point I observed, inter alia, that it was at that stage :-
3. Now that the substantive hearing has been completed, I have had the advantage of hearing a substantial body of further evidence not available at the preliminary hearing. After considering that evidence I see no reason to change any of my preliminary findings or assumptions. Indeed, those findings have not only been confirmed but strengthened. 4. The respondent has repeated the submission made at the preliminary hearing that there had been no "refusal" under Item 11 nor any condition "imposed" in terms of Item 12 under Section 15 (1)(c). Accordingly, it was submitted, there was still no jurisdiction under the Ordinance to consider either claim. I am, of course, aware that the initial enquiries by the applicants, through their authorized architect Mr. F.C.P. Lau, of the respondent in 1972, were made more than 2 years before the Ordinance was enacted. In passing I would observe that those enquiries in 1972 were not made by Mr. Lau spontaneously or voluntarily. For I remind myself that in 1972, the present centralised procedures under the current Building (Administration) Regulations Cap. 123, had not been introduced. Regulation 16 of the Building (Administration) Regulations 1959, which was not revoked until 1976, still applied. In 1972, Regulation 16 placed the following statutory duty on Mr. Lau, when acting as the applicants authorised architect :-
5. There is no need for me to repeat here all the reasons set out in the preliminary ruling why the applicants as a consequence have a claim under the Ordinance. However, I would confirm that the piling work was not actually commenced until the 19th day of February, 1976 more than 1 year after the Ordinance was enacted. Whatever the legal authority of the respondent to reject conventional piling in 1972 in order to protect the Mass Transit Inner Reserve, in his capacity as the Building Authority, he clearly possessed those powers well before the piling work commenced in 1976 and continued to possess them daily, throughout the period of construction. 6. As to the respondent' s submission, certainly there was no refusal made expressly pursuant to Item 11. I recognise too, that there was no condition expressly imposed pursuant to Section 15(1)(c). However, after considering Counsel's submissions on these issues and reminding myself of the conclusions arrived at in the preliminary judgment, which remain undisturbed, by the further evidence now adduced, I hold that such a refusal and condition can respectively be made and imposed other than by expressly invoking the authority of those particular statutory provisions. Having had the advantage of hearing the further and oral evidence called at the substantive hearing together with Counsel's submissions, I am even more satisfied, when I look at the conduct of the parties in its entirety, that the respondent's actions did, as a matter of law, constitute both a "refusal" under Item 11 and the imposition of a "condition" under Section 15(1)(c) in terms of Item 12. I therefore confirm that there is jurisdiction to consider this claim. 7. Turning to the evidence, I would further confirm that I had before me the affidavits filed by the applicants for the purpose of the preliminary hearing, which were by Mr. Lau, the applicants' engineer and a formal affidavit by their solicitor , in relation to the application for extension of time under Section 19 of the Ordinance. From that preliminary hearing I also had an affidavit filed on behalf of the Director of Public works, sworn by Mr. F. Dwyer, Senior Structural Engineer of the Building Ordinance Office. After the preliminary hearing but before the substantive hearing, Rule 18 documents were filed by the following persons who also gave evidence orally at the hearing :-
From that evidence a number of facts, many undisputed, were established. 8. I find that the applicants authorised architect Mr. Lau was qualified and has practised as a Chartered Engineer in Hong Kong since 1968. He has particularly wide experience in constructing new buildings in the Western District. Since 1968 he has as the authorised architect obtained approximately ninety occupation permits for new buildings of which about half have been in respect of the properties in the Western District. 9. I also find that the subject property at No. 184-186 Wing Lok Street is situated in a part of the Western District formed by an old reclamation resulting generally in major piling and foundation problems when new buildings come to be constructed. 10. I am also satisfied that, if no complications caused by the Mass Transit Railway had arisen, it would have been possible to have erected on the subject property a 16 storey building in compliance with the Buildings Ordinance. In fact, on the 16th day of May 1978 an occupation permit was issued for a completed 12 storey building. 11. In respect of that completed building I will consider the applicants claim for compensation under these heads :-
12. Dealing with the first of these heads the major factual dispute surrounding the claim for additional foundation costs related to the necessity of the applicants to employ machine dug caisson piling for the foundations. As to this issue Mr. Lau stated that he was instructed by the applicants early in 1972 to design and obtain the necessary approvals for a new building to be erected on the subject property. He stated that if there had been no Mass Transit Railway complications he would have used conventional piling. This particular conventional piling would have been a system of vibration free piling under which soil is excavated by auger drilling and concrete piles are then cast in situ. A principal advantage of this form of conventional piling was that it was much cheaper than the available alternatives. 13. Mr. Lau stated that apart from his considerable experience of piling conditions in Western he was also the authorised architect in relation to other new buildings in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, namely at No. 182 and also at Nos.188-90 Wing Lok Street. He agreed that the soil investigation of those sites revealed large boulders which would either have had to be removed or drilled through. He conceded that major delays were experienced at No. 188-90 Wing Lok Street because of these obstructions. However, these difficulties led the piling contractors to develop a new tungsten carbide bit, not previously used in Hong Kong. This new bit was specifically designed to meet the piling conditions which in Hong Kong appear to be peculiar to Western. This new equipment was successfully used at No. 182 Wing Lok street and resulted in piling time being reduced by 50%. Mr. Lau was of the opinion that it would have been equally successful for the subject property. 14. However, from the beginning Mr. Lau was aware that the proposed Mass Transit Railway development included a reserve which would affect the subject property. He was formally informed that the subject property was so affected in a letter from the respondent dated the 26th day of January, 1972. During the next 3 months, the respondent informed Mr. Lau that no part of the foundation for the new building was to be constructed within 3 feet of the Mass Transit Inner Reserve and that all structures had to be taken down to 61 feet below ground level. 15. These requirements were conveyed by the respondent to Mr. Lau in writing but were preceded by several discussions with the Building Authority and other officers of the respondent including the Government Mass Transit Engineer. As to the necessity of Mr. Lau making these enquiries I have already referred to Mr. Lau's statutory obligation to do so, under the then Regulation 16. 16. Mr. Lau stated that the maximum 16 storey building permitted on the subject property would have required 44 conventional piles but because of the Mass Transit Inner Reserve restrictions, this number of piles could not have been drilled. Unless a much smaller building was built, reducing the development value of the property, then an alternative foundation had to be designed. 17. These investigations in 1972 by Mr. Lau coincided with major changes in piling techniques in Hong Kong. For at about that time, largely because of the construction of the Plover Cove dams, much more advanced piling techniques together with the related machinery, were introduced to Hong Kong. As far as the Wing Lok street areas was concerned conventional percussion piling, because of the danger of vibration to older buildings in the vicinity, was only allowed under such stringent conditions that it was largely impracticable. Hand dug caisson piling, a well established local technique was not an available alternative in Wing Lok Street, as the dewatering necessary to enable the bore to be manually excavated was prohibited by the respondent, because of the danger to existing old buildings if the level of the water table in the area was altered. As the area represents reclaimed land the water table is relatively high. 18. However, as part of the technical advances mentioned two new more sophisticated piling techniques were just beginning to appear in Hong Kong at this time. These were H piling and machine dug caisson piling. For present purposes what is significant is that the former was an advanced species of percussion piling; the latter did not require dewatering as excavating was carried out by machine and not manually. If it was ever necessary for persons to descend down the excavation below the water level for drilling or explosive purposes, divers were employed. 19. Mr. Lau considered H piling, but rejected it on several grounds including the fact that it was relatively new in Hong Kong and was expensive. On the evidence it also seems unlikely that the respondent would have permitted the use of H piling, which involves heavy percussion driving causing vibrations, in this area of Western, because of the number of nearby old buildings. While it is true the respondent did not prohibit H piling, it is clear from his letter of 12th July 1973 to Mr. Lau, that major difficulties would have been encountered, had this type of piling been attempted. Mr. Lau stated that in any event even if H piling had been used, the final cost would have been similar to the machine dug caisson piling finally selected and approved. 20. Machine dug caisson piling allowed a 12 storey building to be constructed in compliance with the respondent's requirements imposed to safeguard the Mass Transit Reserve. Mr. Lau stated that even with machine dug caisson piling there were design and construction difficulties caused by the reduced area of the total site available for piling, as a result of the existence of the Mass Transit Inner Reserve. One major consequence was that the final piling could only support a 12 storey building. The site permitted a 16 storey building. In theory caisson piling could have been designed to support a 16 storey building. However, it would have been necessary to excavate a larger bulb at the bottom of the caisson piling in the reduced site area, to support 4 additional stories. Mr. Lau was emphatic that a larger bulb or bellout, was not practical on grounds of expense and the danger to life of the extra excavations. 21. Mr. Lau stated that the actual cost of the machine dug caisson piling was $440,000. To calculate the additional cost of caisson piling he adopted the actual piling costs for conventional piling carried out at the adjoining site of No. 182 Wing Lok Street for which he was also the authorised architect and was carried out at about the same time by the same sub-contractor Intrusion-Prepakt Ltd. :-
After subtracting these estimated conventional piling costs of $312,748 from the actual caission piling costs of $440,000, he arrived at the claimed additional foundation costs of $127,252. 22. Mr. Dwyer, the chartered structural engineer called by the respondent, was of the opinion that even if the Mass Transit Inner Reserve had not required protection, the applicants would still, because of the difficulties of the site have been faced with a choice between a number of different alternative foundations. In the absence of any Mass Transit Inner reserve, he considered caissons would not only have been a viable but the obvious choice. He pointed out that poor soil conditions made it necessary in any event for the foundations to be taken down 15 feet lower than the Mass Transit Railway requirements. The probability of meeting large boulders in going down to this depth would have caused delay. The delays and difficulties with conventional piling on nearby Wing Lok Street sites would have reinforced a decision not to use conventional piling. The small site would also in Mr. Dwyer's opinion not have allowed 2 rigs for conventional piling to have been used which would have resulted in further delays. He added that if the actual caisson bellout of 9 feet 9 inches had been widened to 11 feet, full development of the site to 16 storeys could have been achieved. Mr. Dwyer was also of the opinion that H piles could have been used as an alternative and appeared only to have been rejected for non-engineering reasons. Mr. Dwyer concluded that while the Mass Transit Railway Inner Reserve had no doubt influenced the selection of caisson piling, there were strong reasons for it being the only solution in any event. 23. As to the additional foundation expenditure Mr. White, the Government Quantity Surveyor, considered the $127, 252 claimed was excessive and calculated the additional cost at the lesser sum of $88,000. Although he expressed some reservations, he accepted the actual cost of $440,000 as justifiable. The estimated cost of conventional piling was based on $7,100 per pile. Mr. White considered that sum to be not unreasonable at first sight. However, because in his opinion mobilisation costs were low and other charges were excluded, he increased the cost per pile to $8,000, which for 44 piles totalled $352,000. After subtracting this latter sum of $352,000 from the caisson piling cost of $440,000, he arrived at his lesser additional cost of $88,000. 24. Moving on to consider the additional piling cap expenditure it was common ground that if conventional piling had been able to proceed, the 44 piles would have been capped at a common level and the building constructed on that simple foundation. Under the alternative caisson piling system 4 caisson piles only were constructed and they were then capped. This involved a large raft pile cap to bridge the distance between the 4 piles. Mr. Lau pointed out that the actual cost of the pile cap was $138,775. For comparison purposes he then designed the pile cap that would have been constructed if the 44 conventional piles had been driven. Using similar rates to these in the contractor's accepted quotation for the construction of the actual building, Mr. Lau calculated the cost of a conventional cap at $51,147. He therefore concluded that the additional cost of the pile cap was the difference between these two amounts, namely $87,628. Mr. Lau added that he professionally assisted the applicants in the selection of the successful contractor and considered that the contract price was fair and reasonable. 25. Mr. White disagreed with both the rates and the quantities used by Mr. Lau. After adjusting the quantities but still using Mr. Lau's rates - which were the contractor's rates - Mr. White reduced this part of the claim to $66,421.54. However, he also considered that the rates were excessive. Adopting Government Building Development Department rates and applying them to his adjusted quantities, he went on to arrive at the lesser sum of $48,908.03. In Mr. white's opinion this latter lower sum represented the additional piling cap costs. 26. The third head of claim was for additional professional fees claimed at $10,000 and Mr. White considered that sum to be reasonable. 27. The final head of claim was for the loss of development value of the site, Mr. Cullen, the applicants chartered surveyor, assessed the, site value of the subject property, with 16 storey development potential; at $3,303,837 and with 12 storey development potential at $2,875,724. The difference of $428, 113, in his opinion, represented the reduction in the open market value of the site. In his Rule 18 document Mr. Beeson, the valuer called by the respondent, produced a residual valuation of the subject property based on a maximum development of 14 and not 16 stories. It should be noted that initially Mr. Cullen was also under the misapprehension that the maximum development of the subject property was 14 stories but he amended his Rule 18 document to show final calculations for 16 stories. After the oral evidence had been completed, the parties were in agreement that the maximum development would be 16 stories and accepted too, on the basis of Mr. Cullen's figures, the value of both the completed 12 storey development and the notional 16 storey development. 28. Before making findings on this evidence as to quantum,I will first determine whether the applicants were obliged to employ the more expensive machine dug caisson piling solely due to the requirements imposed by the respondent to protect the Mass Transit Railway Inner Reserve. This is an importment issue because before a claim can be pursued under Item 12 - which affects the first 3 heads of claim - the applicants must establish that those additional costs are attributable "solely" to compliance with the respondent's requirements under Section 15(1)(c). 29. Mr. Lau was emphatic that these requirements of the respondent were the sole reason caisson piling was used and otherwise conventional piling would have been used. Mr. Lau's particular expertise as a structural engineer with wide knowledge of foundation conditions in the Western District, was acknowedged by the respondent. His experience and knowledge on these matters was also evident throughout the long period he was in the witness box. It is true difficulties had been encountered on neighbouring Wing Lok Street sites using conventional piling. However, I note that no change to any ether type of piling was made on these sites. Instead, by use of a specially designed bit, the problems were overcome and the same type of conventional piling continued. I have already observed that among the reasons for not using H piling was cost and its relative nowness to Hong Kong. I am satisfied that the similar relative newess and inexperience with machine dug caisson piling would also have detracted from its use and led to conventional piling being used, if the Mass Transit Inner Reserve did not have to be taken into account. The other serious disadvantage of H piling and any other form of percussion piling was, of course, the stringent conditions which had to be complied with to avoid endangering the various old buildings in the area. For similar reasons the prohibition on dewatering prevented hand dug caisson piling being used. After reviewing all the evidence on this issue, I am satisfied that machine dug caisson piling was solely selected because of the respondent's requirements to protect the Mass Transit Railway Inner Reserve. I therefore hold that whatever additional costs were so incurred, they were attributable solely to compliance with the respondent's powers exercised under Section 15(1)(c). I will now proceed to resolve the evidence as to quantum on that basis. 30. First, I will consider the claim for additional foundation costs. The opposing views of Mr. Lau and Mr. White have already been set out. Mr. White accepted the actual caisson foundation cost of $440,000 and I find that sum to be reasonable. The dispute between the experts arose as to the Cost per pile if conventional piling had been used. Mr. Lau's cost per pile was approximately $7,100 while Mr. White put forward a sum of $8,000 per pile as reasonable. However, an examination of Mr. White's evidence revealed that he reached that higher figure by basing his costing on a pile length of 110 feet. That was in fact the depth to which the caissons were cast. However, conventional auger drilled piles would only have gone down to a depth of 75 feet below ground level and that is the length on which Mr. Lau's costings were based. Indeed, if Mr. White's costings are properly applied to a 75 feet pile instead of to a 110 feet pile, the cost per pile would be reduced to $6,100 which is even lower than Mr. Lau's figure. I therefore reject Mr. White's costing of $8,000 per pile. While it would be open on the evidence to prefer the figure of $6,100 per pile, I propose in the circumstances to accept Mr. Lau's figure of $7,100 per pile. On this basis I allow the sum of $127,252 claimed for additional foundation costs. 31. The second head of claim was for additional piling cap costs. If the respondent had not imposed restrictions to protect the Mass transit Inner Reserve, conventional pile caps would have been used for the conventional 44 cast-in-site 19 inch diameter piles. The alternative 4 caisson piles, which the applicant was obliged to use, required the construction of a large raft pile cap to bridge the space between the four caissons. After extracting figures from the actual construction contract, Mr. Lau calculated the actual cost of the large raft pile cap at $138,775. Using rates similarly extracted from the construction contract, Mr. Lau estimated the cost of conventional pile caps in respect of 44 conventional piles at $51,147. On those figures the applicant claims the difference of $87,628 as the additional cap costs incurred. 32. Mr. White was of the opinion that Mr. Lau had overestimated the quantities for the large raft pile cap and underestimated the quantities for the conventional pile caps. After adjusting quantities Mr. White reduced the cost of the large raft pile cap to $124,164.34 and increased the cost of the conventional pile caps to $57,742.80. This resulted in a reduced extra cost of $66,421.54 compared to Mr. Lau's $87,628. However, Mr. White then went on, as I have recorded to reject the rates Mr. Lau's extracted from the construction contract. Instead, Mr. White adopted comparable rates provided by Government Building Development Department contracts. Applying those rates to the previously adjusted quantities, Mr. White arrived at an adjusted cost for the large raft pile cap of $90,401.07 and $48,908.03 for the conventional pile caps. On those figures he further reduced the extra pile cap cost to $48,908.03. 33. Dealing first with the disagreement as to quantities, I observe that Mr. Lau used the contractor's quantities for the large raft pile figures and relied on his own calculations, from the notional design, for the conventional piles. I recognise that Mr. Lau is a chartered structural engineer and not a quantity surveyor but I accept that in his professional training to qualify as a structural engineer he studied and passed examinations in quantity surveying while in practice he has had considerable experience in calculating and checking quantities. Mr. White is a professionally qualified quantity surveyor and the head quantity surveyor employed by the Hong Kong Government. Both witnesses had impressive expertise. I accept that both witnesses calculations are credible. After reviewing the whole of the evidence, as to quantities, I accept Mr. White's quantities. 34. Turning to rates, Mr. Lau adopted the actual prices quoted and paid for the existing large raft pile cap. After considering the evidence the rates may appear high when related back to current prices. However, they form part of an actual contract price. The contractor in calculating that price would have taken into account the particular and well known site difficulties of the subject property. The contract price too, was for a sum which Mr. Lau, with his considerable experience of this area of Western, considered was reasonable. Mr. White based his rates on current or recent Building Development Department contracts. He then related them back to the first quarter of 1976 by means of an Average Index number. The Average Index gives the average increase or decrease in Hong Kong building costs at quarterly increments over the past 12 years in relation to a 1970 base index number. The current Government rates are based on average prices and tend to reflect both larger contracts than the subject contract and good contract working conditions. The working conditions on the subject site it is undisputed, were not good. The relation back to 1976 also involves averaging. 35. When the actual contract price for the subject property is compared with the three other unsucessful tenders, the actual price for the raft pile cap was higher than the other tenders but it formed part of the lowest tender. This may be due to the successful tenderer following a custom of front loading, namely adjusting the price of early works upwards while reducing the price of later works. This does not affect the total contract price but would result in a better cash flow for the successful tenderer. However, if this were the position, it would also be reflected in the final figure for the conventional pile caps under the notional design if the same rates are used. 36. In the event I hold that the better approach in assessing this head of claim is to use the quantities calculated by Mr. White but to apply the rates used by Mr. Lau from the actual construction contract. This results in the cost of the raft pile cap of $138,775 being reduced by $57,742 for the cost of the notional conventional piles producing additional pile cap expenditure of $81,033. 37. The third head of claim was for additional professional fees. $10,000 was claimed. Mr. White considered that sum was reasonable and it is allowed in full. 38. I confirm that all of the three foregoing additional works were attributable solely to compliance with the respondent's requirements, as the Building Authority, imposed under powers created by Section 15(1)(c). 39. The final head of claim was for loss of development value. It is common ground that the measure of compensation under Item 11 for this head is the amount by which the open market value of the land has been reduced. There was no serious dispute between Mr. Cullen and Mr. Beeson as to the value of the completed development for the 12 storey and the notional 16 storey buildings. The approach and comparables cited by both valuers were basically sound. I accept Mr. Cullen's calculations for the site value of the subject property with a notional 16 storey development potential at $3,303,837. Mr. Cullen also calculated a site value with 12 storey development potential at $2,875,724. The latter calculation included a delay period of 5 months or 155 days. On the evidence the correct delay period was 3 months or 127 days. This adjustment reduces Mr. Cullen's meaning decimal deferral period of 21 months down to 19 months. The 19 month factor at 8% is .88592 which gives a present value of receipts of $6,391,355. The development costs of $3,053,258 should similarly be deferred for 9 months and not 10 1/2 months. The factor in this case is .96123 giving a cost figure of $2,934,833 ; a balance of $3,456,472 and cleared site value, after deducting 20% developer's profit, of $2,880,393. I therefore find that the site value with a 12 storey development potential is not $2,875,724 as claimed, but the slightly higher sum of $2,880,393. 40. No allowance was made in the loss of development calculations for the increase in conventional piling costs for a 16 storey compared to a 12 storey building. After considering the evidence of Mr. Lau and Mr. White on piling costs, I find that the additional conventional piling costs would have been in the region of $40,000. In the result I find that the loss of development value was $383,444 being :-
41. I therefore find that the total compensation payable to the applicants by the respondent is $601,729 made up as follows :-
42. The applicants are entitled to their costs of and occasioned by the application in accordance with the supreme Court scale. The applicants are also entitled to interest on the compensation under Section 26 of the Ordinance. Liberty to apply is reserved, in case agreement cannot be reached on interest or on any other consequential issue. 43. I would also record that this is the first hearing, since the lands Tribunal (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance No. 49 of 1982 was enacted empowering the Tribunal to sit with advisers under the new section 9(4), that the Tribunal has sat with advisers thereunder. Messrs. Lyons and O' Sullivan were appointed and sat with the Tribunal in that advisory capacity. I confirm that before the hearing concluded the Tribunal disclosed to the parties in accordance with this new procedure, the advice it had received then inviting and allowing the parties to make further submissions commenting on that advice. Counsel for both parties took advantage of that opportunity to make further submissions. After the disclosure of that advice and before those final submissions were made, I record that the advisers took no further part in these proceedings. In terms of the new Section 9(4)(a) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance my present judgment, sitting alone, is therefore the decision of the Tribunal on this application. DATED this 8th day of June 1983.
Representation: Miss Burgess of Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co. for the applicants Mr. S.Y. Chan, Crown Counsel for the Director of Public Works. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||