Chau To Pui v. The Secretary for The Environment, Transport and Works

LDMR000010/2003

LDMR 10 of 2003

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2003

_______________

_______________

Coram: H. H. Judge CHOW, Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal

Date of hearing: 1 April 2004

Date of handing down of Decision: 17 May 2004

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.This is an application by the Applicant in respect of a claim for the amount of HK$123,557, being costs or remuneration incurred or to be paid by the Applicant in employing persons to act in a professional capacity for him in connection with the offer of or a claim for the compensation as mentioned in Section 10(2)(e)(ii) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance.

2.On 29th September 2000, the piece of land known as Section A of Lot No. 2359 (Portion) and Section B of Lot No. 2359 (Portion) ("the Land") were reverted to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Immediately prior to the reversion of the Land, the Applicant was the registered owner of all the estate right title benefit and interest in the Land. On 26th September 2001, the Applicant accepted an offer of HK$626,665 made by the Director of Lands in respect of the resumption of the Land. But both parties could not agree on the amount of costs or remuneration incurred or to be paid by the Applicant in employing persons to act in a professional capacity in connection with the Applicant's claim submitted to the Director of Lands on 26th March, 2001. In this respect, the Applicant employed a firm of solicitors to act on its behalf.

3.Section 10(1) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance ("the Ordinance") provides that the Tribunal shall determine the amount of compensation 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, and section 10(2) provides that the Tribunal shall determine the compensation payable under subsection (1) on the basis stipulated under items (a) to (e), and subsection (e)(ii) is "the amount of any costs or remuneration mentioned in sections 6(2A) and 8(4)". Section 6(2A) refers to a claim for any costs or remuneration reasonably incurred or paid by the claimant in employing persons to act in a professional capacity in connection with an offer of or claim for compensation.

4.The first issue I have to decide is whether the professional costs claimed should be assessed on the High Court scale of costs or District Court scale of costs. The Applicant instituted the application in the Lands Tribunal on 17th September, 2003. At that time, section 32 of the District Court Ordinance provided that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine any action where the amount of the Plaintiff's claim did not exceed $600,000. The essential element to be considered in the deciding which scale of costs should be adopted is the amount claimed in the Tribunal. The amount claimed is $123,557 whereas the amount of $626,665 accepted by the Applicant is not an item of claim in the Tribunal. Therefore the professional costs claimed should be assessed on the District Court scale of costs.

5.The next issue I have to consider is the hourly rate to be allowed for such professional costs. Having perused the bundle of documents, I am satisfied that a solicitor having 8 years' practice would be sufficiently competent to handle the Applicant's claim submitted to the Director of Lands on 26th September, 2001. I therefore order that the rate for the professional fees claimed is to be allowed at HK$2,300 per hour.

6.Costs

I order that there be liberty to apply in respect of costs of these proceedings.

Representation:

The Applicant : represented by M/S Chan & Tsu, Solicitors.

The Respondent : represented by Secretary for Justice.