Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
B B
LDCS 5000/2016
C [2018] HKLdT 44 C
F
__________________________ F
G G
BETWEEN
H H
J and J
U U
V V
A A
-2-
B B
H H
Before: Mr Alex Ng, Member of the Lands Tribunal
I I
Dates of Hearing: 16 and 18 – 20 April 2018
Date of Closing Submissions: 25 April 2018
J J
Date of Judgment: 13 June 2018
K K
__________________
L L
J U D G M E N T
__________________
M M
BACKGROUND
N N
section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“1st Pair of Lots); section C and
Q Q
section D of subsection 2 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“2nd
R Pair of Lots”); and section A and section B of subsection 2 of section A of R
Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“3rd Pair of Lots”) (Lot 1, 1st Pair of Lots, 2nd
S S
Pair of Lots and 3rd Pair of Lots are collectively referred to as “the Lots”),
T together with 4 buildings erected thereon known as Nos 30-32 Gillies Avenue T
U U
V V
A A
-3-
B B
South and Nos 75-77 Baker Street (“Building 1”); Nos 34-36 Gillies Avenue
C C
South (“1st Pair of Buildings”); Nos 38-40 Gillies Avenue South (“2 nd Pair of
D Buildings); and Nos 42-44 Gillies Avenue South (“3rd Pair of Buildings”) D
(Building 1, 1st Pair of Buildings, 2nd Pair of Buildings and 3rd Pair of
E E
Buildings are collectively referred to as “The Buildings”) respectively for the
F purposes of redevelopment under the Land (Compulsory Sale for F
H 2 Building 1, 1st Pair of Buildings, 2nd Pair of Buildings and 3rd Pair H
According to the approved alteration and addition plan dated 9 February 1957,
O O
the use of G/F of No 30 Gillies Avenue South was changed from shop (non-
P domestic) to food shop (non-domestic). According to the approved alteration P
and addition plan dated 25 February 1967, the use of both G/F of No 30
Q Q
Gillies Avenue South and G/F of No 32 Gillies Avenue South were further
R changed to restaurant. Nevertheless, with reference to the records of the Land R
Register, G/F of No 30 Gillies Avenue South was sub-divided into 5 shops (i.e.
S S
Shop A, Shop B, Shop C, Shop D and Shop E). In addition, each of the
T original planned flats on upper floors of Nos 30 & 32 Gillies Avenue South T
U U
V V
A A
-4-
B B
3 Each of 1st Pair of Buildings, 2nd Pair of Buildings and 3rd Pair of
E E
Buildings that is served by 2 common staircases is a 7-storey Chinese
F tenement block too. An occupation permit No 17K dated 26 June 1956 was F
issued for these 3 pairs of buildings granting permission to occupy them for
G G
domestic purpose. Nevertheless, according to the approved building plans
H dated 4 January 1956 and in each pair of buildings, there were 4 shops (non- H
portions on G/F of Nos 40 and 42 Gillies Avenue South was changed from
K K
shop (non-domestic) to restaurant. According to the approved alteration and
L addition plans dated 10 July 1961, there were addition of an internal staircase L
were removal and erection of a water closet at front portion on G/F of Nos 40
Q Q
and 42 Gillies Avenue South. According to the approved alteration and
R addition plan dated 7 May 1957, there were addition of an internal staircase R
U U
V V
A A
-5-
B B
planned flats on upper floors were subdivided into 2 flats (i.e. Front Portion
C C
and Rear Portion). Front Portion on 5/F of No 42 Gillies Avenue South and
D Rear Portion on 3/F of No 44 Gillies Avenue South were also subdivided into D
4 flats (i.e. Flat A, Flat B, Flat C and Flat D) and 2 flats (i.e. Flat A and Flat B)
E E
respectively.
F F
shares. Part of 1st Pair of Lot (i.e. section F) together with part of 1 st Pair of
I I
Buildings (i.e. No 34 Gillies Avenue South) standing thereon was allocated
J 14 undivided shares, and each of the 2 shops on G/F, 2 offices on M/F and 2 J
flats at Front Portion on 5/F of No 42 Gillies Avenue South and Rear Portion
O O
on 3/F of No 44 Gillies Avenue South was allocated with 1/4 of 1/14 and 1/2
P of 1/14 undivided shares respectively. P
Q Q
5 The applicant filed the Notice of Application (“the NOA”) on 29
R August 2016. At the time of filing of the NOA, the Building was over R
50 years old, and the applicant owned 83.64% (i.e. 18.4 out of the total 22
S S
undivided shares) of Lot 1, on average 82.14% (i.e. 9 out of the total 14
T undivided shares of section F and 14 out of the total 14 undivided shares of T
U U
V V
A A
-6-
B B
section E) of 1st Pair of Lots, on average 82.14% (i.e. 13 out of the total 14
C C
undivided shares of section D and 10 out of the total 14 undivided shares of
D section C) of 2nd Pair of Lots, and on average 89.29% (i.e. 14 out of the total D
50 years or above.
G G
Ordinance (“the Notice”) was gazetted on 22 January 2010 and tabled at the
M M
Legislative Council meeting on 27 January 2010. It came into operation on
N 1 April 2010. Section 3 of the Notice lowered the threshold for compulsory N
permit at least 50 years before the date of the application”. Since the
Q Q
occupation permits of the Buildings were issued in 1956, i.e. more than
R 50 years before the date of application (i.e. 29 August 2016), the applicable R
T T
U U
V V
A A
-7-
B B
RESPONDENTS REMAINING
C C
2nd respondents, the 4th respondent, the 5th respondent, the 6th respondent, the
F F
7th respondent, the 8th respondent and the 14th respondent. At the time of trial,
G the applicant owned 98.18% of Lot 1, on average 96.43% of 1 st Pair of Lots, G
J J
8 At the 1st day of trial, the applicant and the 3 rd respondent (“R3”),
K the 9th respondent (“R9”) and the 13th respondent (“R13”) entered into K
P P
Respondent Premises
U U
V V
A A
-8-
B B
G G
10 R10, R11 and R12 have not filed any Notice of Opposition. They
H H
are not missing. Messrs Foo, Leung and Yeung had confirmed that its client
I had been applying for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of I
R10’s estate, but such grant was not yet available as at 14 March 2018 and
J J
there was also no application for an appointment to represent the estate of R10
K in the present proceedings. R11 and R12 had been informed and served with K
N N
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL
O O
12 At trial, Mr Yuen, counsel for R15s, submitted that they primary
P disputed the Buildings’ existing use value (“EUV”) and the Lots’ P
redevelopment value (“RDV”) and put the applicant to strict proof in respect
Q Q
of other statutory requirements.
R R
13 Above all, the tribunal is required to determine the following
S S
issues under the Ordinance: -
T T
U U
V V
A A
-9-
B B
(iii) What are the respective EUV of all units in the Buildings or the
G G
respective buildings as at 8 July 2016 as assessed in accordance
H with Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Ordinance? H
(iv) Whether the applicant has taken reasonable steps to acquire all
I I
the undivided shares in the Lots or the respective lots on terms
J that are fair and reasonable in accordance with section 4(2)(b) of J
the Ordinance?
K K
(v) If an order for sale should be granted, what should be the reserve
L price (i.e. RDV of the Lots or the respective lots for the purpose L
of auction sale)?
M M
N
14 Since the applicant has combined 4 applications into one and N
asked for orders of a combined sale of the Lots in one auction, the reserve
O O
price to be set at the RDV of the Lots as a composite site and the respective
P EUV of all the units in the Buildings to be adopted for the apportionment of P
the proceeds of sale of the Lots, the tribunal is required to determine whether
Q Q
the applicant’s suggestions are acceptable.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 10 -
B B
less than 90% of the undivided shares in a lot before it can make an
E E
application. Section 3(2)(b) specifies that an application may also cover 2 or
F more lots, on which one building is connected to another building by a F
staircase intended for common use by the occupiers of the buildings, and
G G
where the average of (A) the percentage of the undivided shares owned by the
H majority owner in the lot or lots on which one of the buildings stands; and (B) H
the percentage of the undivided shares owned by the majority owner in the lot
I I
or lots on which the other of the buildings stand, is the not less than the
J percentage specified in section 3(1). J
K K
16 As mentioned above, the Buildings were over 50 years’ old when
L the application was made. The applicable threshold is 80%. I am satisfied L
that as at the date of application, the applicant had already owned on average
M M
more than 80% of the undivided shares in the Lots. In terms of each
N application that has one building or one pairs of buildings, the applicant had N
also owned on average more than 80% of the undivided share in the respective
O O
lot or lots too. The application was also accompanied by a valuation report,
P prepared by Mr Wong Chi Wai (“Mr CW Wong”) of Grandmax Surveyors P
Limited, assessing the EUV of each and every units of the Buildings on vacant
Q Q
possession basis without taking into account of the redevelopment potential of
R the Lots as at 8 July 2016, which was within 3 months of the application. R
S S
17 I agree that the applicant was entitled to make the application
T under section 3(1) and section 3(2)(b) of the Ordinance. T
U U
V V
A A
- 11 -
B B
K
adduced expert evidence of Mr Wong Chi Ming (“Mr CM Wong”) of CM K
Wong & Associates Limited, both a structural engineer and a geotechnical
L L
engineer, and Mr Wong Wing Cheung Dennis (“Mr Dennis Wong”) of
M
Prudential Surveyors International Limited, both a building surveyor and a M
structural engineer. None of the respondents had adduced any expert evidence
N N
in this connection. There is no dispute between the applicant and R15s on the
O
question whether redevelopment of the Lots is justified due to the age or state O
of repair of the Buildings.
P P
U U
V V
A A
- 12 -
B B
due to their poor state of repair and the disproportionate costs of repair and
C C
maintenance. Although regular repair could extend the life of the Buildings,
D repair costs will increase with time. Further, I opine that maintenance can D
bring about a modest improvement only to the existing condition, and each of
E E
the Buildings would remain a sub-standard one. I am also satisfied that
F redevelopment of the Buildings is justified due to the age of the Buildings. F
These 61-year old Buildings are in a poor condition and have in fact come to
G G
the end of their design life. Their design has become obsolete over time in
H many aspects both physically and functionally and has failed to conform to H
between the parties on the EUV of the units as assessed in the application, the
L L
tribunal has to determine the values. Section 4(1)(a)(ii) further provides that,
M in the case of any minority owner of the lot who cannot be found, the majority M
owner of the lot is required to satisfy the tribunal that the value of the minority
N N
owner’s property as assessed in the application is: -
O O
“(A) not less than fair and reasonable; and
P (B) not less than fair and reasonable when compared with the value P
of the majority owner’s property as assessed in the application.”
Q Q
22 Although there is no missing owner and 3 out of the 4 groups of
R R
live respondents have not made any representations in the present
S
proceedings, R15s disputed the Buildings’ EUV as assessed in the application. S
R15s relied on the reports and valuations prepared by Mr Wayne WK Lee
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 13 -
B B
(“Mr Wayne Lee”) of Wayne Lee & Associates Limited, who was the single
C C
joint valuation expert appointed pursuant to the Order made by the tribunal on
D 5 June 2017. D
E E
EUV – G/F Shop
F F
23 Although the occupation permit No 17K dated 26 June 1956
G granted permission to occupy 1st Pair of Buildings, 2nd Pair of Buildings and G
3rd Pair of Buildings for domestic purpose only, it is common ground of the
H H
two valuation experts that the EUV of all the units on G/F and M/F in these 3
I pairs of buildings should be assessed for commercial purposes respectively in I
accordance with the approved building plans. Given that the corresponding
J J
Government lease is virtually unrestricted subject to the restriction on various
K trades for offensive uses only, I agree with their assessments in this K
connection.
L L
M 24 The two valuation experts had agreed a reference shop unit (i.e. M
Front Portion on G/F of No 38 Gillies Avenue South) for assessment but they
N N
had disagreements on selection of comparables and some of the adjustments to
O them. Mr CW Wong selected 9 shop comparables and excluded 2 of them O
after his analyses, whilst Mr Wayne Lee adopted 3 shop comparables that
P P
were also analyzed by Mr CW Wong. Although Mr CW Wong had excluded 1
Q of the 3 common shop comparables (i.e. Comparable ES6 1), I agree with Q
Mr Wayne Lee that it could be included in the valuation but the adjustment for
R R
its location should be reviewed. I also agree to adopt the other 2 common
S shop comparables (i.e. Comparable ES82 and Comparable ES93) and S
1
Unit C103, G/F, Whampoa Building, Bulkeley Street / Ming On Street / Baker Street
2
Unit B, G/F Bulkeley House, 173-177 Bulkeley Street
T T
3
Unit H, G/F, Hing Fat Building, Baker Street / Malacca Street / Cooke Street
U U
V V
A A
- 14 -
B B
E E
25 The two valuation experts had agreement on adjustments for
F time, building age, size, headroom and return frontage, but they had F
make any adjustment for layout to Comparables ES6, ES8 and ES9 because
K K
their respective shapes and depths are no great different from those of the
L reference shop unit, but I consider that Comparable ES1 should be adjusted at L
Chatham Road North, I consider that they should be adjusted at +30% and
S S
+35% respectively.
T 4 T
Unit B, G/F, Wuhu Residence, 111 Wuhu Street
U U
V V
A A
- 15 -
B B
28 In the comparison between the reference shop unit and the other
E E
G/F shop units, the two valuation experts agreed that the rear portion should
F be adjusted at -70% of the reference shop unit rate, but they had disagreement F
I also agree with Mr CW Wong to make adjustment for layout at +5% to the
I I
sub-divided shops units of No 30 Gillies Avenue South. Each of them has a
J much shorter depth. Nevertheless, I agree with Mr Wayne Lee to make J
O O
EUV – M/F Office / Shop
P P
29 According to the approved alteration and addition plans, there is
Q an internal staircase connecting G/F and M/F in each of No 42 and No 44 Q
Gillies Avenue South, but the two valuation experts in their respective
R R
valuations had considered the internal staircase of No 44 Gillies Avenue South
S only. Both the applicant and R15s had not explained why the internal S
U U
V V
A A
- 16 -
B B
Nevertheless, since the applicant being the majority owner owns the G/F and
C C
M/F of No 42 Gillies Avenue South and the internal staircase would enhance
D the value of the M/F thereof, I am of the view that the assessment without D
consideration of the said internal staircase would not be less than fair and
E E
reasonable to the minority owners in the present proceedings and therefore is
F acceptable. Nevertheless, the conversion factor for the M/F of No 44 Gillies F
assessed at 1/4 (i.e. 25%) of its ground floor unit rate, whereas Mr Wayne Lee
I I
adopted a conversion factor of 1/3 (i.e. 33.33%). They had a similar dispute in
J respect of a RDV shop comparable (i.e. Comparable RS5), but they agreed J
that it is reasonable to convert the M/F in this instance, which is accessible via
M M
an internal staircase and a common staircase only, at 30% of the ground floor
N unit rate. N
O O
31 In the valuation of other M/F office units, the two valuation
P experts agreed on the selection of the reference M/F office unit (i.e. Front P
U U
V V
A A
- 17 -
B B
for size in this instance, and therefore prefer all the adjustments proposed by
E E
Mr CW Wong and the adjusted unit rate at $77,000 per square meters.
F F
32 The valuation of all the M/F units is listed in Appendix III of the
G G
judgment. In the comparison between the reference M/F office unit and the
H other M/F units, I agree with Mr CW Wong on the adjustment for size at 1% H
per 10 square meters’ difference too, whilst the two valuation experts agreed
I I
on the adjustment for internal condition of each unit.
J J
P P
34 The valuation of all the upper floor flats is listed in Appendix IV
Q of the judgment. In the comparison between the reference residential unit (i.e. Q
Front Portion on 2/F of No 38 Gillies Avenue South) and the other upper floor
R R
residential units, I agree with Mr Wayne Lee on the adjustment for size at 1%
S per 5 square meters’ difference. I also agree with Mr Wayne Lee that an S
additional downward adjustment should be made to the flats on top floor,
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 18 -
B B
which are susceptible to the adverse effects of heat and water leakage, but I
C C
consider that the adjustment rate should be -2% instead of -5% proposed by
D him. Nevertheless, with reference to the registered floor plan, I agree with D
Mr CW Wong that nil adjustment for lighting and ventilation should be made
E E
to the subdivided Unit A of Front Portion on 5/F of No 42 Gillies Avenue
F South. F
G G
EUV Valuation
H H
35 In accordance with the agreements between the two valuation
I experts and the above determinations, the EUV of all units in each of the I
buildings and the Buildings as at the relevant date of valuation, i.e. 8 July
J J
2016, are appended below: -
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 19 -
B B
Building 1
C C
Address Floor Unit EUV
D 75 Baker Street G - $17,967,000 D
77 Baker Street G - $19,640,000
30 Gillies Avenue South G A $4,427,000
E E
30 Gillies Avenue South G B $4,929,000
30 Gillies Avenue South G C $5,086,000
F 30 Gillies Avenue South G D $5,201,000 F
30 Gillies Avenue South G E $5,032,000
G 32 Gillies Avenue South G - $21,541,000 G
75 & 77 Baker Street 1 - $4,787,000
30 Gillies Avenue South 1 - $5,115,000
H H
32 Gillies Avenue South 1 - $4,976,000
75 & 77 Baker Street 2 - $4,206,000
I 30 Gillies Avenue South 2 - $5,017,000 I
32 Gillies Avenue South 2 - $4,881,000
J 75 & 77 Baker Street 3 - $4,342,000 J
30 Gillies Avenue South 3 - $4,919,000
K 32 Gillies Avenue South 3 - $4,785,000 K
75 & 77 Baker Street 4 - $4,040,000
30 Gillies Avenue South 4 - $4,821,000
L L
32 Gillies Avenue South 4 - $4,689,000
75 & 77 Baker Street 5 - $4,377,000
M 30 Gillies Avenue South 5 - $4,484,000 M
32 Gillies Avenue South 5 - $4,363,000
N 75 & 77 Baker Street 6 - $3,597,000 N
30 Gillies Avenue South 6 - $4,531,000
32 Gillies Avenue South 6 - $4,186,000
O O
Sub-total: $165,939,000
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 20 -
B B
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 21 -
B B
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 22 -
B B
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 23 -
B B
is $583,482,000.
E E
negotiate on terms that are fair and reasonable for the purchase of all the
H H
undivided shares of the Lots under section 4(2)(b) of the Ordinance.
I I
38 The applicant had made 4 batches of offers to the then live
J J
respondents on 29 July 2017, 30 August 2017, 23 March 2018 and 4 April
K 2018 respectively. Ms Ngai, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the K
applicant had taken reasonable steps to acquire the remaining undivided shares
L L
of the Lots. She contended that all the prices offered by the applicant are
M higher than the respective EUV of the live respondents’ units assessed by the M
two valuation experts, and had reflected the live respondents’ proportionate
N N
shares in the RDV of the Lots for joint redevelopment as a composite site.
O O
39 In assessing the reasonableness of the offers, there is the
P P
following guidance from Ribeiro PJ of CFA in Capital Well5 at [33] and [36]:-
Q Q
“33. In making that assessment the Tribunal is not conducting a
valuation exercise. It does not need to adjudicate upon any disputes
R about the correct valuation principles to be applied. It does not itself R
arrive at any conclusion as to what figure represents the correct
valuation. It merely needs to be satisfied that, on the evidence
S available, the offer falls within the range of what may broadly be S
regarded as fair and reasonable compensation for the interest in
T 5 T
Capital Well Ltd v Bond Star Development Ltd (2005) 8 HKCFAR 578, [2005] 4 HKLRD 363
U U
V V
A A
- 24 -
B B
D “36. ...... We are of course not suggesting that it is necessary for the D
offer to “beat” the valuation as if it were a payment into court. What
the Tribunal must do is to consider whether, in the circumstances of
E each case, the offer falls within a band of what represents a fair and E
reasonable assessment of the value of the minority owner’s interest
F reflecting a proportionate share of the redevelopment value of the F
whole site……”
G G
40 I consider that the applicant’s offers, which had considered the
H marriage value of site assembly, had reflected the then RDV attributable to the H
units and were based on professional valuation, do fall within a range of what
I I
may broadly be regarded as fair and reasonable. Although R15s and
J Mr Wayne Lee disputed on both the EUV and the RDV valuations, there is no J
O O
41 I am satisfied that the applicant had taken reasonable steps to
P acquire all the undivided shares of the Lots. P
Q Q
ORDER FOR SALE
R R
42 I am satisfied that redevelopment of the Lots is justified in terms
S of age and state of repair of the Buildings. I am also satisfied that the S
applicant had taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares of the
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 25 -
B B
Lots and had negotiated for the purchase of the respondents’ shares in their
C C
respective units on terms that are fair and reasonable. In the circumstances, I
D agree that an order for sale should be granted in favour of the applicant. D
E E
RESERVE PRICE FOR THE AUCTION
F F
43 After a without prejudice meeting, the two valuation experts
G updated their respective RDV assessments as at 22 March 2018 and 23 March G
2018 and prepared a Supplemental Joint Expert Statement dated 4 April 2018.
H H
They agreed to value the Lots as a composite site instead of 4 independent
I sites. They adopted residual method to assess the RDV of the Lots and opined I
S reference flat. They also argued whether the G/F reference shop unit rate S
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 26 -
B B
assessment. Since the said leaseback had a 3-month fixed term and a 3-month
H H
optional term only and Mr CW Wong had explained the relationship between
I the agreed rent and the then market rent with reference to the then rateable I
the assessment. All in all, the other 4 common comparables are Comparables
L L
RS17, RS38, RS49 and RS8. Comparable RS8 is named as Comparable ES1 in
M the EUV assessment. M
N N
47 The two valuation experts also disagreed on the conversion
O factors for 1/F of Comparable RS5. Given that 1/F of Comparable RS5 is O
which is the same as that for the 1/F of the hypothetical development as
R R
agreed by the parties.
6
Unit C, G/F & 1/F, Top Growth Court, 123 Wuhu Street
S S
7
G/F, 18 Wuhu Street
8
Units A102 & A103, G/F, Whampoa Building, Bukeley Street / Ming On Street / Baker Street
T 9 T
Unit 8, G/F, Wah Lai Mansion, 2 Lo Lung Hang Street
U U
V V
A A
- 27 -
B B
E E
49 Similar to the EUV assessment, I prefer the lesser adjustment rate
F at 1% per 1-meter difference in frontage proposed by Mr CW Wong. With F
reference to the depth of the reference shop and the comparables, I agree with
G G
Mr CW Wong to make adjustment for layout to Comparables RS1, RS4 and
H RS8 at -10%, -5% and -5% respectively, but the adjustment rate for H
K K
50 Since Comparable RS1 at the junction of Wuhu Street and Dock
L Street occupies a prominent location, I agree with Mr CW Wong to make L
adjustment for its return frontage at -20%. The adjustment for return frontage
M M
of Comparable RS8 was agreed by the two valuation experts at -10%.
N N
51 Regarding the adjustment for location, the two valuation experts
O O
agreed on the adjustment rates at -25% and -15% for Comparables RS3 and
P RS8 respectively. I agree to the adjustment rates at -40% and +15% for P
to the nearby funeral parlours is not so inferior. Moreover, I consider that the
S S
location of Comparable RS5 is inferior to the location of Comparable RS8 and
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 28 -
B B
unit rate of all G/F shops of the hypothetical development, but Mr CW Wong
G G
had made further adjustments to each of the hypothetical G/F shops. Although
H Mr CW Wong had not prepared a hypothetical G/F layout plan for reference, I H
agree to his proposed layout of each hypothetical G/F shop and hence also
I I
agree with him to value each hypothetical G/F shop individually. The
J valuation of the hypothetical G/F shops is listed in Appendix VI of the J
judgement.
K K
layout to Units A and B should be revised to +5%, and the adjustment rates to
O O
Units F to L should be revised to -2.5%. The average unit rate of all
P hypothetical G/F shops is about $481,287 per square meter. P
Q Q
GDV – Upper Floor Flat
R R
54 The two valuation experts agreed on the selection of comparables
U U
V V
A A
- 29 -
B B
the adjustments for view and top floor. I agree with Mr CW Wong that top
C C
roof is valuable in the current market and accept his proposed conversion
D factor at 1/8. I also agree with Mr CW Wong that adjustments for view and D
top floor are not necessary. With the benefit of joint site inspection, I consider
E E
that the respective views of Metro6 and the hypothetical development are
F similar. Both are surrounded by low-rise tenement blocks and some high-rise F
composite buildings. Further, unlike the top floor in aged tenement block, I
G G
agree with Mr CW Wong that top floor in new buildings would have much
H better thermal and waterproof insulation. I accept that, at least in a newly H
also accept his proposed adjusted unit rate at $233,000 per square meters.
K K
Details of the assessment are listed in Appendix VII of the judgment.
L L
Development Parameters
M M
56 Other than the GDV that is discussed and determined in the
N N
above paragraphs, the two valuation experts agreed on most of the
O development parameters except for construction costs and development period O
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 30 -
B B
costs for the commercial podium and the residential towers should not affect
I I
the total construction costs, and no adjustment for development scale is
J necessary in this instance. J
K K
58 Regarding the construction costs of the commercial podium,
L I consider that the adoption of shopping center costs at L
determined should reflect the scenario that better external facades would be
Q Q
built in the commercial podium, and hence the construction costs at $20,000
R per square meters proposed by Mr Wayne Lee appears not to be adequate. All R
U U
V V
A A
- 31 -
B B
L L
61 Ms Ngai submitted that, in the case First King Ltd v Liu Keng
M Chor [2016] 3 HKLRD 39, HH Judge KW Wong was correct in holding that M
the tribunal has a power under s.4(6)(a)(i) of the Ordinance to direct a
N N
combined sale of the subjects of different orders for sale in one auction.
Q price were to be set at the aggregate of the RDVs of lots assessed individually Q
notwithstanding that the subject of the auction sale was enlarged into a
R R
composite site.
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
- 32 -
B B
the minority owner respondents that the reserve price should be set on a
E E
merged site basis.
F F
missing owner in the present proceedings and both the applicant and R15s had
I I
no dispute on this issue, I agree to set the reserve price on a merged site basis
J too. From valuation viewpoints, value of a merged site, which would release J
marriage value if any, is generally higher than the aggregate of individual site
K K
values of the lots. By looking at the achievable auction price alone, a higher
L reserve price would not prejudice the interest of the minority owners. L
M M
APPORTIONMENT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS
N N
64 Even though the reserve price is set on a merged site basis, there
O are questions on apportionment of sale proceeds. Whether the apportionment O
should base on the respective EUV of all the units in the Buildings, or there
P P
should have apportionment firstly based on individual site values and then on
Q respective EUV of the all the units in each building? Whether individual site Q
values should be taken into account if a reserve price on a merged site basis is
R R
ordered, or no order on a merged site basis should be granted if individual site
S values should be considered in the apportionment? S
T 10 T
LDCS 5000 & 6000 / 2013 (Consolidated) dated 12 June 2015
U U
V V
65 The above questions have not been argued in the present
proceedings. Both the applicant and R15s agreed to apportion the sale
proceeds in accordance with the respective EUV of all the units in the
Buildings. Given that there is no dispute on this issue; there is no missing
owners; building densities of the respective buildings in the Lots, which are 7-
storey Chinese tenement blocks, appear to be similar; and Lot 1 would in any
event benefit from its corner position as a Class B site, I agree to apportion the
sale proceeds in accordance with the respective EUV of all the units in the
Buildings too, which appears not to prejudice the interest of the minority
owners in the present proceedings.
ORDER
(ii) All the undivided shares in the Lots, the subject of the
applications, be sold by way of public auction for the purposes of
redevelopment of the Lots;
(iv) For the purposes of the sale of the Lots by public auction: -
(vi) Liberty to the applicant, the respondents and the Trustees to apply
to the tribunal for further directions.
COSTS
11
67 Following Good Faith , I make a costs order nisi that the
applicant do pay costs of these proceedings to the respondents on High Court
scale, with certificate for one counsel, including any reserved costs, to be
taxed if not agreed. Unless any parties apply by summons to vary, the costs
order nisi shall be made absolute upon expiry of 14 days from today.
11
Good Faith Properties Ltd and Others v Cibean Development Co Ltd [2014] 5 HKLRD 5340
(Alex Ng)
Member
Lands Tribunal
Ms Nancy Ngai, instructed by Zhong Lun Law Firm, for the applicant
Mr Billy Ma and Ms Lorraine Tsang, instructed by Li, Kwok & Law, for the
3rd respondent
Mr Ross Yuen and Mr Jun Lee, instructed by Philip K Y Lee & Co, for the 9 th
and 13th respondents; and instructed by King & Co, for the 15th respondents
The 10th, 11th and 12th respondents were not represented and did not appear