Fairbo Investment Ltd and Another v. Appeal Tribunal (Buildings)

HCAL 35/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 35 OF 2012

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

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

CORRIGENDUM

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

1.Paragraph 42 (3) & (4) at page 20 should read as follows:-

“(3) Further, the act of assigning the Lanes to its successors in title (through the 1^st assignments and all the subsequent assignments) is also an act inconsistent with all these owners surrendering the Lanes to the Government.

(4) The 1^st assignments and the fact that the Lanes were also assigned to the 1^st assignees in 1957 and later in subsequent assignments must be relevant to the question of whether there was implied surrender of the Lanes by the owners to the Government.  In particular when the Tribunal also took into account the letter of C&L in 1953 (which is prior in time to the 1^st assignments) to support the finding of the estoppel (see paragraphs 54(a) and 55 of the Decision).”

2.Paragraph 44 at page 21 should read as follows:-

“44. I accept that the evidence relating to the 1^st assignments and the fact that the Lanes were also assigned by Tat Hing to the various 1^st assignees (and also to the subsequent purchasers by way of subsequent assignments) are relevant to the question of whether there had been implied surrender of the Lanes to the Government by the owners post 1957. This is particularly so given (a) the high threshold of the quality of evidence required of in establishing an implied surrender, and (b) that the Tribunal has not found nor set out in the Decision the time by which it says there should be a surrender by all the owners of the Lanes to the Government.”

3.Paragraph 100 (1) at page 43 should read as follows:-

“(1) In finding that there was surrender of the Lanes by estoppel, the Tribunal has erred in law in failing to take into consideration in its evidence weighing exercise (a) the fact that the Lanes were assigned together with the thirty-eight sections of the Lots to the thirty-eight 1^st assignees under the 1^st assignments, and also later (under the subsequent assignments) to the subsequent purchasers, and (b) the fact that the new lot numbers were never assigned to the Lot.”