Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

A

CACV 61/2015
and CACV 110/2015
(Heard together)

B
C
D

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE


HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL

D
E

CIVIL APPEAL NOS 61 and 110 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM LDCS NO 27000 of 2011)


G
H

BETWEEN
GROUP LEADER LIMITED
()

1st Applicant

H
I

nd

EVER PLANET LIMITED


()

2 Applicant

DYNAMIC HERO LIMITED


()

3rd Applicant

BORTEN LIMITED ()

4th Applicant

GENTWAY LIMITED
()

5th Applicant

SUPREME HERO LIMITED


()

6th Applicant

GLORY STAR DEVELOPMENT


LIMITED ()

7th Applicant

RISE CHEER INVESTMENT


LIMITED ()

9th Applicant

and

HUI SUN FAT and


LEUNG CHUN HA

8 Applicant

th

TRIPLE GLORY LIMITED


()

Q
R
S

1st Respondents
(Discon
tinued)

T
U
V

- 2 -

2nd Respondent

The Personal Representative of the


Estate of LEUNG YIN MEI,
Deceased

3rd Respondent

The Personal Representative of the


Estate of LAW SAM, Deceased

LEE LAI PING

4th Respondent
(Discon
tinued)

F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

LI AH CHO, the Personal


Representative of the Estate of
CHEUK SHING WING, Deceased
and the Personal Representative of the
Estate of LAM HOI KAM, Deceased

6th Respondents
(Discontinued)

TAM WING HONG and TAM FUN


LIN, the Executors of the Estate of
CHU KAM, Deceased

7th Respondents

CHAN KIAN CHONG

E
F

th

5 Respondents
(Discontinued)

N
O

TSOI FOK MO KAN (),


FOK CHUN WAN IAN ()
and FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN
(), the Executors of the Estate
of FOK YING TUNG, Deceased

WONG KUM WAH

G
H
I
J
K
L
M

th

8 Respondent
(Discontinued)
9th Respondent
(Discontinued)

N
O

10th Respondent

LI XUEMIN () appointed by
the Lands Tribunal to represent the
Estate of LEE AH HSIN, Deceased

YEUNG KAM KUEN and


YEUNG YANG SONG HUAN

11th Respondents
(Discontinued)

LI MAU FONG ()

12th Respondent

CHUNG CHIU HING ()

13th Respondent

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

P
Q

th

14 Respondent

- 3 -

JIN YU CHIA

15th Respondent

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS


OF WESTERN COURT

16th Respondent

DIRECTOR OF LANDS
_______________________
(Heard together)

D
E
F
G
H

Dates of Written Submissions: 11 May, 2 and 13 June 2016

Date of Judgment: 24 June 2016


___________________

JUDGMENT
____________________

I
J

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.

We dismissed this appeal on 1 March 2016 with our Reasons

for Judgment handed down on 16 March 2016. By 2 Notices of Motion of


29 March 2016, the Director of Lands, the 17th Respondent [the
Director], seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

N
O
P
Q
R
S
T

K
L

Before: Hon Lam VP, Barma JA and G Lam J in Court

I
J

17th Respondent

1. Where undivided shares of a lot previously held by the


Government as bona vacantia were assigned to a party who
covenanted to the Government that he would not further
dispose of those undivided shares without the prior written
approval of the Government, whether the Government has
locus standi to be joined as a party to or intervene in an
application for compulsory sale order under the Land
(Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (Cap. 545)
(LCSRO) involving those undivided shares to allow the
proper ventilation of the Governments interest arising from
the said covenant?

The

question set out in the Notice of Motion issued in CACV 61 of 2015 as the
question of great general or public importance [GPI] is as follows:

N
O
P
Q
R
S
T

- 4 -

A
B

2.

The Notice of Motion issued in CACV 110 of 2015 set out

A
B

another GPI question:


C

D
E
F
G

3.

1. Whether, on a proper construction of the LCSRO, the


market value of a property on the lot as assessed pursuant to
the requirements identified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the
LCSRO (i.e. the existing use value) should be the price at
which the property would change hands in a hypothetical
sale and purchase between a hypothetical seller and a
hypothetical buyer?

In our judgment, we decided the question in CACV 61 of 2015

D
E
F
G

against the Director. We also held that as a result of our determination of


H
I

the issue in CACV 61 of 2015, the Tribunal should not entertain the
Directors submissions on the question raised in the context of CACV 110

H
I

of 2015. We therefore did not consider it appropriate for us to decide the


J

issue raised by the Director in CACV 110 of 2015.

4.
L
M

In support of her application in CACV 61 of 2015, the

Director basically repeated her arguments before us. We have explained in


our judgment why we rejected those arguments. A major contention of the

L
M

Director is that the expression all the rights of any prior owner in Section
N
O

8(1) encompasses rights which did not run with the land and were not
proprietary in nature. In light of that subsection referring to rights of any

N
O

prior owner in or over the lot or any part thereof and the definition of
P
Q

such rights in Section 8(6) (confining it to rights exercisable by virtue of


ownership of an undivided share in the lot which affect the lot), we remain

P
Q

of the firm view the Directors contention is not reasonably arguable.


R
S
T

5.

Mr Mok also referred to the other statutory provisions in the

Ordinance to support his contention. We have adequately addressed the


same in our judgment and we do not regard what Mr Mok said in his

S
T

- 5 -

submissions in support of the Notice of Motion as taking the matter further.

We do not think that to be reasonably arguable.


C
D

6.

For these reasons, we would dismiss the Motion in CACV 61

of 2015. It also follows that there is no basis why the Court of Final
E

Appeal should be troubled with the issue raised in CACV 110 of 2015. We

shall also dismiss the Notice of Motion in that appeal.

7.

We shall also order the Director to pay the costs of the 1 st to 9th

Applicants in respect of the Notices of Motion, with certificate for


2 counsel, such costs are to be taxed if not agreed.

G
H
I

8.
J

In the supplemental submissions of Mr Mok of 13 June 2016,

counsel referred us to an affirmation of 26 February 2016 and submitted


that the notices of appeal had been served on the 7 th, 10th, 12th to 15th

J
K

Respondents. He further submitted that those respondents were parties to


L
M

the appeals before us. On the other hand, Mr Mok appeared to accept that
there had not been any effective service of the notices of appeal on the 2 nd,

L
M

3rd and 16th Respondents.


N
O

9.

However, from the court records, these appeals had always

th

proceeded as appeals between the Applicants and the 17 Respondent only.


P
Q

The Notices of Appeal endorsed with certificate of service lodged pursuant


to Order 59 Rule 5(1)(b) for setting down the appeals were notices of

P
Q

appeals endorsed only with service on the solicitors for the Applicants. The
R
S

notices of setting down lodged with the court only specified the solicitors
of the Applicants as the other party to whom notices were given. A consent

R
S

summons of 26 March 2015 in CACV 61 of 2015 and a consent summons


T

of 31 May 2015 in CACV 110 of 2015 were only signed by solicitors for

- 6 -

the Applicants and Government Counsel acting for the 17th Respondent. As

a result, notices of hearing were only given to these parties.


C
D

10.

In the circumstances, though there may be an inaccuracy at

paragraph 2 of our judgment of 27 May 2016 regarding service of the


E

notices of appeal, we stand by our conclusions in that judgment.

J
K

(M H Lam)
Vice President

(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal

(Godfrey Lam)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance

L
M
N

J
K
L

Written submissions by Mr Patrick Fung SC and Ms Nancy Ngai,


instructed by Lo & Lo, for the 1st to 9th applicants
Written submissions by Mr Mok Yeuk Chi and Mr Anthony Chan,
instructed by the Department of Justice, for the 17th respondent

M
N