Penny's Bay Investment Co Ltd v. Director of Lands

Read the full judgment text of CACV 176/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 May 2009.

1. We consider that this is an appropriate case for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because it raises issues which this Court has not found easy.  In essence, this Court has come to three different judgments and, in those circumstances, it is undesirable that the Lands Tribunal should be left in too much of a quandary as to how it should proceed.

Cited by 3 cases

Case No.CACV 176/2007
Court
Court of Appeal
Date08 May 2009
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 176/2007 AND CACV 177/2007
(Consolidated)

CACV 176/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2007

(ON APPEAL FROM LDMR NO. 23 OF 1999)

----------------------

BETWEEN    
  PENNY'S BAY INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED Applicant
  and  
  DIRECTOR OF LANDS Respondent

----------------------

AND

CACV 177/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2007

(ON APPEAL FROM LDMR NO. 1 OF 2005)

----------------------

BETWEEN    
  PENNY'S BAY INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED Applicant
  and  
  DIRECTOR OF LANDS Respondent

----------------------

(Consolidated pursuant to the order of the
Honourable Mr Justice Rogers, Vice President dated 26th June 2007)

Before: Hon Rogers VP, Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 8 May 2009

Date of Judgment: 8 May 2009

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Hon Rogers VP:

1.We consider that this is an appropriate case for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because it raises issues which this Court has not found easy.  In essence, this Court has come to three different judgments and, in those circumstances, it is undesirable that the Lands Tribunal should be left in too much of a quandary as to how it should proceed.

2.This Court considers that leave should be given under section 22(1)(b), under the ‘or otherwise’ ground, without specifying the particular points of law which can be argued in the court.

(Anthony Rogers) (Peter Cheung) (Maria Yuen)
Vice-President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

Mr Denis Chang SC, Mr Johannes Chan SC and Mr Jeremy S K Chan, instructed by Messrs Wilkinson & Grist, for the Applicant/Respondent

Mr Michael Barnes QC and Mr Valentine Yim, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondent/Applicant