632 Claimants v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

HCMP 114/98(10)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 114 OF 1998

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. I am only prepared to give a judgment about the facts of this case.

2. I have already dealt with those persons who were eligible for compensation but disputed the amount, and that part of the case is finished.

3. This part of the case refers to eligibility. In order to be eligible for compensation, a person must have been residing in Rennie's Mill in June 1961 and continued to live there until April 1995; and that must have been their principal home. The reasons for this are set out in full in my main Judgment in 1996. These are issues of fact for me to decide. As I have 480 or so cases to deal with, I do not intend to give separate judgments for each, but merely to indicate whether I am satisfied that the person has proved that he is eligible.

4. In the first part of this case people kept complaining about the loss of Rennie's Mill. As I told them continuously, that is irrelevant. Similarly, the loss of a cottage is also irrelevant here. All that I am concerned with is whether a person has a right for compensation. As far as Madam Yu Kai Yan (under Case No. 940) is concerned, on the facts, her application is dismissed.

5. The residence at Rennie's Mill must be continuous in order to qualify for compensation. The documents all indicate that the applicant moved out. I do not believe her and this application is dismissed.