BabelCite

Mingo Properties Ltd v. The Director of Lands

Case No.
Court
Date26 Feb 2007
Judge—
Case Document
100%

LDLR 6 OF 2005

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Lands Resumption Application No. 6 of 2005

_______________

BETWEEN

　 　MINGO PROPERTIES LIMITED Applicant
　 And 　
　 THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS Respondent

_______________

Coram: Mr. W. K. LO, Member of the Lands Tribunal

Dates of Hearing: 15, 16, 17, and 18 January 2007

Date of Judgment: 26 February 2007

_____________________

C O R R I G E N D U M

_____________________

1.There were some very minor arithmetic errors in the adjustments of the comparables in respect of the ‘frontage’ factor as shown in the calculation at Tables 2 and 3 of the Judgment.  These errors are now corrected and the revised pages 26 and 27 of the Judgment are appended below: -

“- 26 - (Revised)

Tribunal’s adjustments of the adopted comparables

45.        Adopting the adjustments as summarized above, I have analysed the adopted comparables for Portions D and E separately, as follows: -

Table 2 – Analysis of adopted comparables for Portion D

Comp.

Unit

Price

($ / m2)

Adjustment
Time Location Headroom Size Frontage Shape Total

Adjusted Unit Rate ($ / m2)

    

AC-2/RC-2

168,545

-2%

-15%

0

-2%

2%

0

-17%

139,892

AC-5/RC-4

157,051

3.5%

-10%

-4%

3%

0

-5%

-12.5%

137,420

AC-6/RC-5

155,872

12%

-20%

0

7%

-3%

-5%

-9%

141,844

AC-7

109,470

12%

-15%

0

7%

0

0

4%

113,849

AC-8

99,800

15%

-15%

0

7%

0

0

7%

106,786

RC-1

108,491

-2%

-10%

0

14.5%

-4%

0

-1.5%

106,864

Average

124,443

Revised Table 3 – Analysis of adopted comparables for Portion E

Comp.

Unit

Price

($ / m2)

Adjustment
Time Location Headroom Size Frontage Shape Total Adjusted Unit Rate ($ / m2)    

AC-2/RC-2

168,545

-2%

-15%

0

-16%

3%

0

-30%

117,982

AC-5/RC-4

157,051

3.5%

-10%

-4%

-11%

1 %

-5%

-25.5%

117,003

AC-6/RC-5

155,872

12%

-20%

0

-7.5%

-2.5%

-5%

-23%

120,021

AC-7

109,470

12%

-15%

0

-7%

0.5%

0

-9.5%

99,070

AC-8

99,800

15%

-15%

0

-7%

0.5%

0

-6.5%

93,313

RC-1

108,491

-2%

-10%

0

0

-3.5%

0

-15.5%

91,675

Average

106,511

Valuation of the Property on vacant possession basis

46.         Applying the average adjusted unit rates for Portions D and E arrived at in the Tables 2 and 3 above to their respective effective saleable

- 27 - (Revised)

floor areas give the following results:

(i) For Portion D –

Agreed Effective Saleable area of 48.02 m2 x $124,443 / m2

= $5,975,753

(ii) For Portion E –

Agreed Effective Saleable area of 104.38 m2 x $106,511 / m2

= $11,117,618

47. Therefore, the open market value of the Property is estimated to be the sum of the values of Portion D and Portion E, i.e. $5,975,753 plus $11,117,618, which is equal to $17,093,371 rounded to $17,094,000.

Orders

48. Accordingly, I order that the Respondent do pay the Applicant compensation for the Property in the sum of $17,094,000.  The matters of professional fees, interest and costs shall be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar, with liberty to apply for any other ancillary and consequential matters.

　  (Mr. W. K. LO)
Member,
Lands Tribunal

Mr. Simon K M LUI, instructed by M/S Cheung, Chan & Chung, for the Applicant.

Mr. Jin PAO, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.”

2.As a result of these corrections, the compensation for the Property is changed from $17,080,000 to $17,094,000.

　 (P. Y. LEE)
Clerk to Member W. K. Lo

Dated this the 22nd day of March 2007