WEALRISE INVESTMENTS LTD v. LEUNG CHI KEUNG

HCMP 119/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 119 OF 2011

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM LDCS NO. 8000 OF 2009)

____________________________

BETWEEN

____________________________

___________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

___________________________________

Hon Tang Ag CJHC (giving the reasons for judgment of the Court):

1.  On 3 December 2010, Deputy Judge Lui, Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal, made an Order of Compulsory Sale underthe Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, Cap. 545 (“the Ordinance”) of all the undivided shares of and in 2 lots of land on which two buildings known as No. 1 Kwan Yick Street, Kennedy Town, Hong Kong (“the 1^st Lot”) and No. 2 Kwan Yick Street, Kennedy Town, Hong Kong (“the 2^nd Lot”) were erected.

2.  The 1^st Lot and 2^nd Lot shared a common staircase and there was one domestic unit on each of the 1^st to 5^th Floor.  The ground floor unit in each building was for retail use.

3.  The Applicant was the registered owner of all but 1 (out of 13) of the undivided shares in 2 lots.  The Respondent was the registered owner of the remaining share and had the exclusive right to use the domestic unit on the 2^nd Floor of No. 2 Kwan Yick Street (“the Respondent’s Unit”).

4.  The learned Deputy Judge also ordered that the Respondent, who had appeared in person, to pay the costs of the application to be taxed on the High Court Scale.  It appears that the learned Deputy Judge took the view that costs should follow the event.

5.  This is the Respondent’s application for leave to appeal from the Compulsory Sale Order as well as for the cost order.  Leave having been refused by the learned judge on 11 January 2011.  He also asked for a stay of the Compulsory Sale Order pending appeal.

6.  We have refused the application for leave to appeal in respect of Compulsory Order.  It did not appear to us that there was any arguable ground of appeal. It followed that we have also refused a stay of that Order. 

7.  Indeed, the Respondent was more concerned about the cost order.  We gave leave to appeal against the cost order because we question whether cost should necessarily follow the making of a Compulsory Sale Order.