LAI Yuet Ngao t/a Hoi Yeung Commercial v. Director of Lands

Crown Lands Resumption
Reference No. 2 of 1995

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

HEADNOTE

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

Property law - Crown Lands Resumption - Aquarium and Accessories Shop - Business Losses - Valuation of Goodwill - Valuation of Stock - Valuation of Fixtures and Fittings - Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, Cap. 124, s. 10(2)(d) - Compensation awarded at $680,000

Ground floor rented premises used as shop selling fishes and aquarium accessories resumed by the Crown for urban redevelopment. The applicant proprietress claims, inter alia, loss of goodwill at $900,000, value of stock and tools put on forced sale as a result of resumption at $2.736 million and loss of fixtures and fittings at $300,000. The applicant does not produce any independent evidence in support of claim for loss of goodwill. She merely asserts annual profits of $300,000 before the resumption. The respondent disputes every large item of claim as being unsubstantiated. Evidence, not disputed by the applicant, shows that a shop bearing very similar trade name, of very similar nature and at nearby premises commenced business after the applicant's shop was closed. There is, however, no evidence as to who operates that new shop. The applicant admits that she was, prior to the resumption, a partner in a venture that sold aquarium accessories from the said new premises; but that venture had collapsed before the resumption. There is also evidence, again not disputed by the applicant, that the applicant's husband used to use the resumed premises as the business address of his trading firm which was transferred to the said new premises. The respondent contends that the applicant continues business at the said new premises. In view of the meagre $3,000 fetched from the auction of the stock and tools of the applicant's business, the respondent also alleges that some of the stock and tools being the subject of claim were not auctioned off. At most, the respondent would support total compensation at $422,727 only.

Held: (1) In accordance with s. 10(2)(d) of the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, the applicant is entitled to compensation that would restore her to the business position where it would be had there been no resumption, i.e. an amount of compensation so as to put the applicant in the position where it was at the time of resumption. (2) There is insufficient evidence that the applicant operates the new business. (3) Accepting the applicant's evidence that she did not have sufficient financial means to re-establish elsewhere, compensation to the applicant should be calculated on total extinguishment basis. (4) In the absence of other reliable evidence on profitability of the business, using salaries and wages cost approach, cross-checked by the rental outgoings approach, total loss of goodwill determined at $440,000. (5) Auction proceeds at $3,000 taken as a reliable indicator of the market value of the stock and tools in question for if indeed some of the stock or tools were not sold through auction the auction price would reflect the lesser quality or quantity. Assuming high maintenance cost for perishable fishes, market value of the stock and tools determined at 10 x $3,000 = $30,000. (6) Relying on expert assessment of the worth of fixtures and fitting recorded as present at the subject premises before resumption, and allowing for depreciation, value of fixtures and fittings determined at $114,430. (7) Adding other items allowed, total compensation determined at $680,000.

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF HONG KONG

(Crown Lands Resumption Reference No. 2 of 1995)

______________________

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

The Applicant is the sole proprietress of a shop known as Hoi Yeung Commercial ("the business") at rented premises situated at No. 42F, Ground Floor of Pak Tai Street, Ma Tau Kok, Kowloon ("the subject premises"). The subject premises were resumed by the Crown pursuant to section 3 of the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, Cap. 124 ("the Ordinance") under a Notice of Resumption dated 26th June 1992, published in Volume CXXXIV Hong Kong Government Gazette on 3rd July 1992 as G.N. No. 2264 of 1992 and reverted to the Crown on 3rd October, 1992. Nonetheless, the Applicant was allowed to remain at the subject premises until April 1994.

2. Despite advice given by several members of the Tribunal at various stages, the Applicant decided not to engage legal representatives or experts of any kind to help her to prepare her case. The Tribunal has also repeatedly emphasized in open court that the burden was on the Applicant to prove each and every element of her claim. During the trial, the Applicant was given ample opportunities to adduce more evidence, if any, and to canvass more effectively for her claim.

3. It is common ground that the Applicant is entitled to compensation for business loss calculated under section 10(2)(d) of the Ordinance as -

"the amount of loss or damage to a business conducted by a claimant at the date of resumption on the land resumed or in any building erected thereon, due to the removal of the business from that land or building as a result of resumption."

In practical terms, the Applicant is entitled to reimbursement that would restore her to the business position where it would be had there been no resumption. In this regard, she claims the following business losses:-

	HK$
Loss of goodwill	900,000.00
Loss of profit rent	To be assessed
Loss on forced sale of stock and tools	2,736,110.00
Loss of fixtures, fittings and decoration	300,000.00
Transportation fee	50,000.00
Auction ground storage and security	28,000.00
Auctioneer's charges	13,424.80

4. Mr. Lam, counsel for the Respondent, contends that compensation should be assessed on the basis of re-location of the business. And, the quantum for each item claimed is disputed. The Respondent's assessment of the losses suffered by the Applicant, assuming compensation is payable, has been revised several times during the course of these proceedings. By way of final submission, counsel for the Respondent contends that the compensation due to the Applicant should be as follows:-

(a) If on total extinguishment basis, at most

	HK$
Loss of goodwill	117,472.00
Loss of profit rent	13,700.00
Loss on forced sale of stock and tools	115,700.00
Loss of fixtures, fittings and decoration	114,430.00
Transportation cost	20,000.00
Auction ground storage and security	28,000.00
Auctioneer's charges	13,425.00
	422,727.00
	==========

(b) If on relocation of business basis

	HK$
Loss of profit rent	13,700.00
Temporary loss of profits	30,000.00
Loss of fixtures, fittings and decoration	114,430.00
Transportation cost	20,000.00
Auction ground storage and security	28,000.00
Auctioneer's charges	13,425.00
	219,555.00
Say	220,000.00
	==========

5. The subject premises were part of a major resumption of more than one hundred properties for the Hong Kong Housing Society's Urban Improvement Scheme ("the Scheme"). In addition to Pak Tai Street, the Scheme site extended to Sui Lun Street, Wang Cheung Street, Ma Tau Kok Road, San Shan Road and Pau Chung Street in Ma Tau Kok. The present case is one of nearly thirty applications by property owners and business operators affected by the Scheme for compensation who felt unable to accept the Crown's offer for settlement. Whilst each case must be decided on its own facts, an understanding of the background circumstances helps us to appreciate the general picture and understand the differences between the parties on specific issues. Having considered and otherwise dealt with a number of these claims, examined photographs of the area in general and of the individual streets and heard quite a few estate surveyors and witnesses involved, we believe we now have a fairly good idea of the locality and the resumption process.

6. The area affected by the scheme was essentially an old residential area. Most buildings were constructed immediately after the Second World War. Most of the buildings we have had to consider were not higher than six storeys and did not have a lift. The upper floors were mainly tenement flats with perhaps the odd business or other trade. We have heard evidence that some of the buildings were issued with occupation permits for "domestic use" from the ground floor upwards. But nearly all ground floor units in the area were used as shops, restaurants or workshops. Many of these enterprises and over-grown small operations were run by families who, as can be expected, are poor managers; business takings went straight to meeting family, personal and trading expenses. Few, if any, had an accounting system; single entry records at best. And because it was a run down area, landlords and local residents were more tolerant of environmental, building and land use abuse. Most, if not all, ground floor units in the area had some sort of cockloft and an open yard which might be covered and protected from the elements by some overhead structure. Retail and food businesses in the area would hardly be able to find elsewhere with comparable cheap rent or purchase price and yet more storage or useful space. Moreover, the area was also partially industrial, with a significant number of factory buildings right outside the fringes of the plots affected by the Scheme. This means that the clientele for retailers and food businesses were not limited to local residents, but also workers who filled the streets in the area during lunch hour and for a period before and after work.

7. The Scheme was actually in the winds well before the resumption notices were issued in July 1992. Before then, the Housing Society had begun to buy out some of the landlords and tenants in the area. After the resumption was gazetted, the intention was that all the affected owners, occupiers and business operators would clear out in October 1992. Some did. Apparently, the landlords and tenants on the upper floors were dealt with first. The business operators on the ground level were given several extensions of time for moving out - eviction was initially postponed to the end of 1992, then to the beginning of 1993, then to September 1993 and eventually to April 1994. During all this time, the tenants were allowed to occupy and business operators permitted to trade (if there was still business) without having to pay rent. At first, claims for compensation were handled by the staff of the Housing Society which had a field office in situ. Later, processing of these claims was taken over by the Lands Department. It was in September 1993 that the Housing Society and the Lands Department sent staff to the ground floor businesses to take stock and inventory with the view to clearing them out then. Many of the claimants say that they handed over original documents and papers substantiating their claims to the Housing Society or the Lands Department during this period, hence they no longer have all the proof for their claims now. There is no doubt that a number of representatives of those affected by the Scheme had several meetings with officials of the Lands Department. They also sought help or mediation from local politicians and OMELCO. There were definitely letters passing between the parties, including offers of ex-gratia compensation. Some of the disputes were settled but some business operators allege that they were given the impression that if they wanted to preserve their right to full compensation they had to cease trading, auction off their stock and not continue business in another locality. Others say that the ex-gratia payments they received on account from the Government were not enough to cover the costs of setting up elsewhere and the Government refused to lend them money, so that they were unable to re-locate. In any event, even if they could move to elsewhere, with higher rent, more restricted land use, different clientele and perhaps difficulties with labour supply, business would not be the same. But we hear from counsel for the Respondent that the Housing Society and the Lands Department had not advised the claimants to close their businesses altogether. We think there may be some misunderstanding there. In many cases, counsel for the Respondent says, the Housing Society and the Lands Department do not have the documents which the claimants allege they have handed over. We cannot determine who is right or wrong in fact in this respect; but, during the change over from a Housing Society operation to Lands Department processing, the possibility of some bureaucratic mix-up cannot be ruled out. In any event, it is pointless to argue and ponder over irretrievable papers now.

8. It was in April 1994 that the authorities managed to evict the remaining affected ones. There was a furore at the time, with angry words uttered, force displayed and the attention of the mass media attracted. The claims we have to deal with are mainly concerned with those who moved out in April 1994. Probably due to the confusion and urgency at the time to clear the remaining business operators, their stock and inventory were not checked again. Some operators were able to remove their stock as they planned, some were locked out first and then allowed to retrieve their possessions. Some claimants say that their business books and records were left and lost in the resumed premises as they left in a hurry or were forced out. Upon eviction, most of the business operators had their stock, plant and machinery transported to a place in the New Territories and auctioned off by one common auctioneer. It is now undisputed fact that there is no reliable inventory of the actual stock, plant and machinery sold by auction for each claimant. This is a problem we encounter in virtually every case before us.

9. We now consider each of the issues and items of claim in this particular claim under separate headings.

Total Extinguishment

10. Mr. Lam, counsel for the Respondent, says that the business had actually relocated. Indeed, the Respondent adduced evidence relating to a shop bearing the signboard Hoi Yeung Water Creatures ("New Hoi Yeung") on the Ground Floor of No. 55 Pak Tai Street, opposite what used to be the subject premises. See photographs in Exhibit R4. We have no evidence on the business registration of New Hoi Yeung. There is, however, evidence of a sole proprietorship in the name of the Applicant's husband registered as Ocean Trading Co. ("Hoi Yeung Trading"). See Exhibit R2. Hoi Yeung Trading originally had its registered business address at the subject premises but was changed in May 1994 to the premises of New Hoi Yeung at No. 55, Ground Floor, Pak Tai Street. According to the same business registration record, Hoi Yeung Trading imports and exports foodstuffs, electrical goods, household utensils, etc. Mr. Lam contends that New Hoi Yeung is the continuation of the business at new premises and hence there was no total extinguishment.

11. The Applicant admits that she did between October 1992 and January 1993 carry on a business in partnership with another lady at No. 55, Ground Floor, Pak Tai Street selling dry goods connected with the aquarium trade. That joint venture was supposed to be complementary to the business. But the partnership failed due to lack of customers as a result of the resumption. The Applicant says that the business did not relocate because she could not afford to move to new premises requiring expensive construction of new fish tanks. In regard to New Hoi Yeung and Hoi Yeung Trading, the Applicant is adamant that she has never had anything to do with them.

12. One may be forgiven to suspect that the business has continued under the guise of New Hoi Yeung. However, a suspicion is no more than what it is. Looking at all the evidence objectively, we must resist the temptation to connect New Hoi Yeung with the Applicant. We have no information at all as to how New Hoi Yeung came into being. We do not even have the business registration particulars of New Hoi Yeung. The particulars in the business registration of Hoi Yeung Trading shows that it is in an entirely different line of trade. Although the sole proprietor of Hoi Yeung Trading is the Applicant's husband, it is a separate and distinct identity from the business. Because a man and his wife are each entitled to have his or her own property and business interests, there is no basis to hold that the Applicant's husband has or had a proprietary interest in the business or vice versa. We think the Applicant would have to be at the premises of New Hoi Yeung often enough if she has been carrying on business there as before and it should not be difficult for the Respondent to gather evidence of the Applicant's activities there. But we do not even have evidence that the Applicant goes near New Hoi Yeung. Taking into account all the evidence and materials before us, we are unable to find that New Hoi Yeung is a continuation of the business.

13. As to whether the Applicant should or could have relocated, we have pointed out in previous related cases relocation involves more than getting new accommodation. The costs of setting up elsewhere cannot be ignored. In Director of Buildings and Lands v. Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd. [1995] 1 HKC 417, some guidance can be found in the Board's advice at p. 428 as follows:-

"It all depends on how a reasonable businessman, using his own money, would behave in the circumstances. Such a case, however, the tribunal or court will need to scrutinize the relocation claim with care, to see whether a reasonable businessman with adequate funds of his own might incur the expenditure. This is particularly so when, as in the case of Shun Fung, compensation assessed on a relocation basis would greatly exceed the amount of compensation payable on an extinguishment basis. The greater the disparity, the more closely the claim should be examined, because the less likely would it be that a reasonable businessman would behave in this way. Compensation is not intended to provide a means whereby a dispossessed owner can finance a business venture which, were he using his own money, he would not countenance."

14. It appears implicit in the Privy Council's advice the businessman should not be expected to relocate if he or she does not have adequate funds of his or her own. Resumption albeit for the public good is a tortious interference with the rights and interests of legitimate property owners and business operators. It is trite law that a tortfeaser is obliged to compensate even if the victim happens to have a thin skull. It would not be fair to expect every business to have standby financial resources for re-location at any time the authorities see fit to resume the site on which the business was operating. We also consider it a truism in life that the operator of a profitable business is most unlikely to fold his business before giving careful consideration to and making serious efforts for relocation so as to preserve the pride embodied in the business establishment and continue to reap the profits of an established undertaking. We accept the Applicant's evidence she could not afford the cost of constructing new fish tanks at new premises. Having considered all the evidence, and taking into account all factors and circumstances, we find that the Applicant had to cease business as a result of the resumption. In the premises, this case is treated as one for total extinguishment.

Goodwill

15. The method we adopt for assessing goodwill is the one explained in Land Compensation and Valuation Law in Hong Kong by H.H. Judge Cruden at pp. 80-81 and which we have applied in other cases arising from the Scheme. First, we establish the normal profit trends of the business before resumption. Conceivably, the reported profits of the business, the rental value of the premises at which the business is conducted or the wages and salary costs of the business may be used as basis for this purpose because each of them may somewhat relate to the profitability of the business. Once the annual profit trend of the business has been arrived at, it must be related by multiplication to the anticipated future life of the business, had the subject premises not been resumed. Then the product is discounted for interest gain on capitalized profits.

16. The business had been operating at the subject premises since 1988. In fact, in that year the Applicant took over an existing business there. The business was run by the Applicant herself with the help of three casual workers. The Applicant says she no longer has the recent trading accounts or tax records of the business. She merely asserts that she made about $300,000 net profits each year. Obviously, we cannot rely on bare assertions about the profits of the business.

17. Mr. Sham, expert for the Respondent, suggests in p. 5 of his report Exhibit R17 that valuation may be based on (1) the average wage level of a retailer for durable and consumer goods in 1991 at $97,893 per annum and adding 20% thereon to reflect a business owner's return or, (2) an annual profit figure of $58,000 on the basis of previous reported taxable profits. But Mr. Sham himself has rejected the second method for it produces an unacceptable result. On the recommended base figure by the first method, Mr. Sham would apply a multiplier of 3. We have no difficulty in rejecting the calculation by the first method suggested by Mr. Sham. We thought we have impressed upon the parties in WONG Sau Hing, LEE Wing Tau, LI Sai Kuen and LEE Sai Ho trading as Shing Kee Metal Dealer v. Director of Lands, CLR No. 20 of 1994 and in TSANG Ling-chu trading as Wrench Engineering Co. v. Director of Lands, CLR No. 23 of 1994 that this approach is not fair and appropriate where a business has several or more employees. We still hold this view. Moreover, it is unsatisfactory to use the average wages of a retailer of durable goods and consumer goods in 1991. The main commodity sold by the Applicant was fishes which should be classified as perishables and not consumables or durables. In any event, later year instead of the 1991 figure should be used. We have no reason to doubt that the Applicant had 3 casual helpers for at least $250 per person per day. Assuming, since the hired help were drifting casual workers, 20 working days per person and no 13th month year end bonus, our calculation by the wages and salary cost method would be $250 x 20 x 3 x 12 x 1.2 = $216,000 per annum.

18. Alternatively and as a cross-check, as we have used in WAN Yiu-ling and TSUI Tan-fai trading as Lucky Money v. Director of Lands, CLR No. 9 of 1995, another guide is the rental value of the subject premises. It is generally assumed that the profit of a normal thriving business is at least equal to the rental value of the premises at which it is conducted. Here, we can safely take it that the Applicant was making profits. According to the Respondent's expert, the market rent for the subject premises should be $12,300 per month. Using this figure, annual profits should be $12,300 x 12 = $147,600. This is considerably less than the result obtained by the wages and salary cost method. But, as we have mentioned before, the rental value approach is a measure of minimum expected return, the actual return can be higher. We, therefore, adopt a rounded up higher figure of $220,000 as the base figure.

19. Although the Applicant's tenancy had expired in 1993 before the applicant was evicted, we would adopt a multiplier of 2 being the generally accepted minimum. Accordingly, we determine the loss of goodwill at $0.22 million x 2 = $440,000.

Profit Rent

20. Before the profit rent can be calculated, the full market rent of the subject premises has to be ascertained. The Applicant leaves the matter entirely at the discretion of the Tribunal. In KO Lai-mui trading as Cheung Shing Mirror v. Director of Lands, CLR No. 6 of 1995, we adopted a unit rate of $350 per sq. m. for the ground floor of No. 42H of Pak Tai Street. We think this rate holds good for the subject premises too. The Respondent's expert using the same rate produces a market rent of around $12,300 per month for the subject premises, which excludes the yard and cockloft not occupied by the Applicant, and a profit rent of $1,297 per month or $13,700 for the entire unexpired term of the tenancy for the Applicant. We consider his assessment reasonable.

21. Accordingly, we determine the Applicant's loss of profit rent at $13,700.

Trading Stock and utensils

22. The business had a stock of fishes, fish food, aquarium accessories and some minor items of trade utensils. In September, 1993, officers of the Lands Department went to the subject premises and made a record of the stock and tools held by the business at that time. There are altogether 250 items of them; see the inventory lists and photos in Exhibit R5. The whole lot fetched $3,000 only at the public auction in May 1994. The Applicant puts the value of her entire holding at $2,739,110. For the value of the trading stock, she relies mainly on quotations recently obtained, not actual cost or market prices in 1994. Since the Applicant obviously uses the wrong basis for valuation, we disregard her estimates. Mr. Wong, expert for the Respondent, at first valued the trading stock and tools at $188,528. See details in Exhibit R6. For reasons explained in Exhibit R7, Mr. Wong later revised his estimates and adjusted the valuation to $237,400. We note that Mr. Wong did not have the opportunity to inspect the stock and tools and so assessment had to be made on the basis of inventory lists and photographs showing some of the Applicant's stock. One difficulty, which we believe of particular importance, with this paper valuation is that the stock inventory does not give sufficient details about the size or quality of some of the controversial items of stock. The valuation is more in the nature of a hazardous shot in the dark.

23. In Callwin International Electric Co. Ltd. v. Director of Engineering Development MTR 3 of 1984, the Tribunal, comprised of H.H. Judge Cruden and Mr. Phillips, held that auction price is an acceptable basis for determining loss for purposes akin to section 10(2)(d) of the Ordinance. In WONG Sau Hing, LEE Wing Tau, LI Sai Kuen and LEE Sai Ho trading as Shing Kee Metal Dealer v. Director of Lands, CLR No. 20 of 1994, taking a broad approach, we believed the price paid by the successful bidder in the auction in April 1994 reflects the variety and quantity of the trading stock, machinery and equipment on auction and took the auction price as the equivalent of 28.5% of the market value of the trading stock, machinery and equipment in that case. In TSANG Ling-chu trading as Wrench Engineering Co. v. Director of Lands, CLR No. 23 of 1994, we relied on the auction price to determine the value of the machinery, equipment, tools and stock in that case. In the circumstances of that case we multiplied the auction proceeds by a factor of 5. In FUNG Kai-yin, CHEUNG Chin, YAU Chi-hung and LING Po-sin trading as Hang Lam Tong Sun Yung Seafood and Medicine Co. v. Director of Lands, CLR No. 12 of 1995, we again relied on the auction price to determine the value of the stock in that case. In the circumstances of that case we multiplied the auction proceeds by a factor of 5. If we go by conventional wisdom, supported by expert evidence in previous cases, that goods on auction should fetch 20% to 80% of the ordinary market value, the value of the Applicant's trading stock and tools to her should be no more than five times of $3,000, which is almost next to nothing compared with the value assessed by Mr. Wong. We are rather surprised by such meagre return and wonder if anything untowards happened at the auction. However, our experience from related cases indicates that the stock and equipment of claimants affected by the Scheme can obtain very substantial price, upto over $2 million per lot, from the same public auction service used by all the claimants concerned. We have no reason to believe in this case that the price from the auction of the Applicant's trading stock and tools was not a reliable reflection of the quantity and quality on sale in an open competitive auction market. The Applicant admits that she kept the door open for business after stock taking by the Lands Department officer, so part of the stock might have been sold subsequently but before the auction although the Applicant insists that she was not able to sell anything during that period. In the light of all the circumstances, we do not think it would be useful to value the Applicant's trading stock and tools item by item according to the inventory record. We take the auction price as a reliable indicator of the quantity and quality of all the trading stock and tools.

24. In the premises, and having regard to the special nature of the part of the stock, being fishes which were perishables requiring high maintenance costs, the best we can do is to apply a factor of 10 to the auction price to obtain a value of $30,000 for all the stock and tools. Accordingly, we determine compensation for loss for forced sale of the Applicant's trading stock and tools at $(30,000 - 3,000) = $27,000.

Fixtures and Fittings

25. The Applicant claims $300,000 for decoration and improvement expenses incurred over a number of years on the subject premises. Of this sum, only a comparatively small amount is supported by documents. We note from the Applicant's own evidence that she paid $55,000 to take over the subject premises including all the fixtures and fittings from the previous operator. Very little had been added except by way of maintenance and repairs and there are few precise details from the Applicant about such work done at the subject premises. Mr. Sham for the Respondent relies on an inventory of the fixtures and fittings found at the subject premises in September 1993, applies 10% per annum depreciation for some 4 years and arrives at a value of $114,430.

26. We have no reason to reject Mr. Sham's valuation. Accordingly, we determine compensation for fixtures and fittings at $114,430.

Miscellaneous Items

27. The Applicant further claims transportation fees for auction at $50,000 auction exhibition ground and security charges at $28,000 and auctioneers' charges at $13,424.80. The claims for transportation, auction exhibition ground and security charges are not supported by receipts. The claim for auctioneers' charges is supported by a copy of the receipt in Exhibit A2 which, we believe, has given credit for $3,000 received as auction proceeds. There can be no serious dispute over the auctioneers' charges. Mr. Sham in his report at p. 2 of Exhibit R17 puts the costs for transportation at $20,000 but adopts the other amounts as claimed. We are told by the Applicant that she had to transport the fish stock to another place for keeping and then to the actual auction ground, i.e. two trips were required and she had to hire special trucks with water tanks for each trip. In the absence of documentary support for the Applicant's claim, we would allow double the amount as assessed by Mr. Sham for transportation cost. We gather from evidence in related cases we have heard and from the Applicant that the auction exhibition ground and security charges at $28,000 are in fact an apportionment of a much larger amount which all the business operators affected by the Scheme and had to auction their goods had to share. We have no reason to doubt this and would allow the amount as claimed.

28. In summary, compensation for the following items is justified:-

	HK$
Loss of goodwill	440,000.00
Loss of profit rent	13,700.00
Loss on forced sale of stock and tools	27,000.00
Loss of fixtures and fittings	114,430.00
Transportation fee	40,000.00
Auction ground storage and security	28,000.00
Auctioneer's charges	13,424.80
	676,554.80
say	680,000.00
	==========

The Order

29. Accordingly, we determine compensation for the Applicant at $680,000. Leave is reserved to apply for the rate of interest, if not agreed, to be determined under section 17(3A) of the Ordinance. There is an order nisi that the Respondent shall pay the Applicant's expenses incurred in prosecuting her claim which we assess at $3,000 to be made absolute unless application is made, within 21 days from the date of handing down of this judgment, to the contrary. Liberty to apply is also reserved for ancillary and consequential matters.