Read the full judgment text of HCMP 001927/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 June 1996 before Sears J.
Administrative law – judicial review – public law promise – promissory estoppel against public authority – abuse of power – Housing Ordinance (Cap.283) s.19 – Resettlement Ordinance 1958 – cottage resettlement area – Rennie's Mill (Tiu Keng Leng) – 1950 resettlement of Kuomintang refugees – June 5th 1961 letter from Commissioner for Resettlement and June 15th 1961 letter from Governor's office promising residents could 'continue to reside in their existing buildings indefinitely' – Phase III Junk Bay / Tseung Kwan O New Town Development – ex gratia clearance payments – Notices to Quit served December 26th 1995 – First issue: legal effect of the 1961 letters – whether they conferred a legal right or only a procedural legitimate expectation – court construes letters as plain, solemn promises by the highest authority and grants the residents a personal licence to remain indefinitely, subject to Occupation Permit conditions, distinguishing 'legitimate expectation' as a procedural doctrine – reliance evidenced by 35 years without eviction and by 1964 relocation within the area in accordance with the promise – following In re Preston [1985] 1 AC 835 and R. v. Liverpool Corporation ex p. Liverpool Taxi Operators [1972] 2 QB 295 (and Birkdale District Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Southport Corporation [1926] AC 355) – public body bound by its undertaking so long as performance is compatible with its statutory duty – conduct in issuing notices held to be an abuse of power – Second issue: justiciability – whether judicial review lies or whether the matter is private law under s.20 Housing Ordinance – court holds the matter is amenable to judicial review because the promise was made by a public official in his public capacity before designation as a cottage resettlement area, distinguishing Hung Wah Chong Investment Co. Ltd. v. A.G., Benbecula Ltd. v. A.G. and In re an Occupation Permit – Remedy: notices not quashed given the public interest in the Tseung Kwan O redevelopment for 283,000 people; only remedy is damages – Extent of liability: right is personal to 1961 residents still in occupation, not transferable and not passing by inheritance; quantum (loss of structure and loss of opportunity to occupy at reduced rent) reserved for further argument or agreement – Court makes no criticism of the Housing Authority and urges residents to leave peacefully.
Legal issues: Legal effect of the June 1961 letters from the Commissioner for Resettlement · Justiciability of the Government's decision to issue the Notices to Quit · Extent of the Government's liability under the 1961 promises
Outcome: Application for judicial review granted in part: the Court declared that the issuance of the Notices to Quit was unfair and an abuse of power, giving the qualifying residents a right to damages. The Notices to Quit were not quashed and the Housing Authority was not prevented from proceeding with the Tseung Kwan O redevelopment.