CENTRAL PROFIT INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v. SHUGA INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

LDCS 1000/2016

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

LAND COMPULSORY SALE MAIN APPLICATION

NO 1000 OF 2016

_________________

________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Background

1.  This is an application for compulsory sale of all the undivided shares of and in Section B of Shaukiwan Marine Lot No 2 (“the Lot”), with a building erected thereon known as Tai Lok House at No 2 Tai Cheong Street, Hong Kong (“the Building”), for the purposes of redevelopment pursuant to the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, Cap 545 (“the Ordinance”). 

2.  The 11-storey Building is served by 1 common lift and 2 common staircases. An occupation permit No H192 dated 27 October 1960 was issued for the Building, which permitted playground, store and meter room for non-domestic use on basement floor and 15 tenements for domestic use from ground floor to 9^th floor.  There are discrepancies on floor numbering of the Building as shown on the approved building plan and the Land Register. According to the Land Register, the basement floor is now named as ground floor (“G/F”), and the ground to 9^th floors are now named as 1^st floor (“1/F”) to 10^th floor (“10/F”). Further, with reference to the alteration and addition plans approved in 1976, the covered space for children’s playground on G/F was converted into shop units, a transformer room, a male lavatory and a female lavatory.

3.  The Lot and the Building was allocated with 924 undivided shares. The G/F including the transformer room was given 54 undivided shares, each of Flat M and Flat O on upper floors was given 4 undivided shares, each of the other domestic units on upper floors was given 6 undivided shares, and the roof (“Roof”) was given 10 undivided shares, making a total of 924 undivided shares. 

4.  The applicants filed a Notice of Application (“the NOA”) on 29 February 2016, which was subsequently amended on 28 July 2017 pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal.  At the time of filing of the NOA, the applicants owned 784 out of 924 (i.e. 84.85%) undivided shares of and in the Lot, more than the threshold of 80% undivided shares of the Lot required for building aged 50 years or above. 

5.  Section 3(1) of the Ordinance prescribes that the minimum percentage of undivided shares that an applicant or applicants should possess before making an application under the Ordinance is 90%. Section 3(5) of the Ordinance provides that the Chief Executive in Council may, by notice in the Gazette, specify a lower percentage in respect of a lot belonging to a class of lots specified in that notice. The Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) (Specification of Lower Percentage) Notice made under section 3(5) of the Ordinance (“the Notice”) was gazetted on 22 January 2010 and tabled at the Legislative Council meeting on 27 January 2010. It came into operation on 1 April 2010.   Section 3 of the Notice lowered the threshold for compulsory sale, insofar as it is applicable, from 90% to 80%. Section 4(1)(b) of the Notice specified one of the classes for the purposes of Section 3 being “a lot with each of the buildings erected on the lot being issued with an occupation permit at least 50 years before the relevant date”.  Since the occupation permit of the Building was issued on 27 October 1960, i.e. more than 50 years before the relevant date (i.e. the date of application on 29 February 2016), the applicable percentage is therefore 80%.

Respondents Remaining

6.  At the time of application, there were 25 respondents. The applicants have subsequently discontinued the proceedings against the 12^th respondent, the 18^th respondent, the 20^th respondent and the 21^st respondent following the acquisition of their respective units in the Building. An amended NOA was filed to reflect the situation. The applicants have also discontinued the proceedings against the 23^rd respondent (i.e. the mortgagee of the unit owned by the 9^th respondent and the 10^th respondent) because the 23^rd respondent is not a “minority owner” for the purposes of the Ordinance and does not have any locus standi to take part in the application. A Notice of Discontinuance was filed on 4 August 2017.

7.  At the time of trial, there are 20 live respondents, and the applicants owned 802 out of the total 924 undivided shares (i.e. 86.80%) of the Lot. There are 18 respondents whose units and undivided shares have not yet been acquired by the applicants. There are also 1 respondent (i.e. the 24^th respondent), which is the chargee under the Charging Order Absolute dated 8 June 2001 and registered in the Land Registry against the 13^th respondent’s interest, and another 1 respondent (i.e. the 25^th respondent), which is the Official Receiver and Trustee in Bankruptcy of the 13^th respondent.

8.  Except for the 1^st respondent and the 13^th respondent, all the other live respondents act in person in the present proceedings.  The 1^st respondent was represented by Mr Cheng at trial.  Nevertheless, after the applicants and the 1^st respondent entered into a Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase of the 1^st respondent’s unit, leave was granted by the Tribunal at commencement of trial in terms of the Consent Summons to withdraw all documents including the Notice of Opposition, all expert reports and the witness statement filed by the 1^st respondent, all the Joint Statements of Valuation Experts filed by the applicants and the 1^st respondent, and the 2 rebuttal valuation reports filed by the applicants.  While the 13^th respondent is a bankrupt and the 25^th respondent is the Official Receiver and Trustee in Bankruptcy of the 13^th respondent, the 13^th respondent did not take part in these proceedings.

9.  Only the 1^st respondent, the 16^th respondent and the 17^th respondent had filed Notice of Opposition in these proceedings.  As mentioned above, the 1^st respondent had withdrawn its Notice of Opposition.  The 16^th respondent and the 17^th respondent did not file any evidence in support of their opposition, and they were absent in the subsequent hearings and did not appear at trial.

10.  Lam VP in Group Leader Ltd v Hui Sun Fat[1] at [38] mentioned that: -

“38. For a person like the Director who has no proprietary claim over the land, until she obtains a judgment in her favour and a charging order based on that judgment, she could not enforce her claims on the land. In that respect, she is in the same position as a contractor who had executed building works for the IO and sued the latter for balance of the sum due. It can hardly be the intention of the legislature to envisage that such a contractor, before having obtained a judgment, can have the locus to require the Tribunal to hear him on the question of whether there should be a compulsory sale and how the EUV of the Roofs and Exterior Wall should be assessed. In our judgment, the Director stands in the same position”

11.  In light of the above comments, the applicants joined the chargee under the Charging Order Absolute dated 8 June 2001 and registered in the Land Registry against the 13^th respondent’s interest as the 24^th respondent.  In these proceedings, the applicability of the Group Leader’s comments had not been argued. Nonetheless, the 24^th respondent had not filed anything in the case. 

Issues for Determination by the Tribunal

12.  At trial, after the withdrawal of the expert evidence in relation to the 1^st respondent’s opposition, there was no expert evidence filed by the other respondents in these proceedings. Ms Ngai, counsel for the applicants, simply called the witnesses to prove the applicants’ case.  Although the 15^th respondent and representative of the 19^th respondent and the 22th respondent appeared at trial, they had not made any submissions and had not put any question on the applicants’ witnesses too, but they said that they would have concern about their entitlements in these proceedings. The applicants contended that all the requirements of the Ordinance had been satisfied and asked for an order for sale of the Lot.

13.  Nevertheless, the Tribunal is required to determine the following issues under the Ordinance: -

(i) Whether the applicants have acquired the minimum undivided shares in the Lot which entitles them to make the application under the Ordinance?

(ii) What are the respective market values which are usually termed as the existing use values (“EUV”) of all units in the Building as at 11 December 2015 as assessed in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Ordinance?

(iii) Whether the redevelopment of the Lot is justified due to “age” and/or “state of repair” of the Building in accordance with section 4(2)(a) of the Ordinance?

(iv) Whether the applicants have taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lot on terms that are fair and reasonable in accordance with section 4(2)(b) of the Ordinance?

(v) If an order for sale should be granted, what should be the reserve price (i.e. redevelopment value (“RDV”) of the Lot for the purpose of auction sale)?

Whether the Conditions for Making an Application under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance are Satisfied by the Applicants

14.  Section 3(1) of the Ordinance requires an applicant to possess not less than 90% of the undivided shares in a lot before it can make an application.  The Building was over 50 years’ old when the application was made.  Hence, the applicable threshold is 80%.  I am satisfied that as at the date of application, the applicants had already owned more than 80% of the undivided shares in the Lot. The application was also accompanied by a valuation report, prepared by Mr Charles CK Chan (“Mr Chan”) of Savills Valuation and Professional Services Limited, assessing the EUV of each and every units of the Building on vacant possession basis without taking into account of the redevelopment potential of the Lot as at 11 December 2015, which was within 3 months of the application.

15.  I am satisfied that the applicants were entitled to make the application under section 3(1) of the Ordinance.

Determination of the EUV of all Units in the Building

16.  Under section 4(1)(a)(i), if there is a dispute between the parties on the EUV of the units in the Building on the Lot, the Tribunal has to determine the values. Section 4(1)(a)(ii) further provides that, in the case of any minority owner of the Lot who cannot be found, the majority owner of the Lot is required to satisfy the tribunal that the value of the minority owner’s property as assessed in the application is: -

“(A) not less than fair and reasonable; and

(B) not less than fair and reasonable when compared with the value of the majority owner’s property as assessed in the application.”

17.  In these proceedings, except for the 1^st respondent, none of the other respondents had adduced any expert valuation evidence.  After the applicants and the 1^st respondent withdrew their respective valuation evidence in relation to the 1^st respondent’s opposition, there is valuation evidence of 3 valuation reports prepared by Mr Chan only.

18.  Mr Chan explained his valuation method and the assessment process to arrive at the EUV of each unit in the Building in his valuation report dated 26 February 2016.  In undertaking the assessment, Mr Chan adopted Direct Comparison Method.  The G/F was assumed and valued as a shop unit, and was compared with sale transactions of shop units with larger size in the vicinity. For the domestic units on upper floors, he had firstly identified two reference units, one for larger size units and another for smaller size units, and compared them with the respective sale transactions in the market.  The remaining domestic units in the Building were then compared with the respective reference units.

19.  In the assessment, the voids adjoining the balcony of each domestic unit, which were considered as unauthorized extensions, were analysed by a conversion factor of 2/3. The transformer on G/F was analysed by a conversion factor of 2/3 too.  In assessing the market value of the Roof, reference was made to the average unit price of the domestic units on 10/F and a conversion factor of 1/10 was adopted to reflect its large size.

20.  The Lot is held under a government lease which contains, inter alia, the following covenant on the restriction of user: -

“… the said Lessees and their Assigns, shall not at any time during the said term use or allow to be used the said demised premises or any part thereof for any other purposes than for Reclamation Building Dwelling houses, Factories Godowns or similar purposes without having first obtained the licence or consent of His said Majesty, His Heirs, Successors, or Assign, signified in writing by the Governor for the time being of the Colony of Hong Kong …”  [Emphasis added]

21.  In Cheermark Investment Limited v The Director of Lands[2] and Happy Enough Limited v Director of Lands[3], the government lease in respect of the properties resumed by the government contained a covenant on the restriction of user, which was almost identical to the covenant in the government lease of the Lot.  In these two cases, the Tribunal decided that the use of the ground floor premises in the respective suit buildings as shops for commercial purpose did not amount to a breach of the user restriction under the government lease, and alternatively, if shop use was not permitted under the government lease, knowledge of breach should be imputed to the government lease, and given the long course of usage without enforcement action, the government had abandoned the covenant on the restriction of user. Nevertheless, the Tribunal had granted leave for the Director of Lands to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the above decisions on the ground that the intended appeals were not without any reasonable prospect of success.

22.  Although Ms Ngai submitted that the applicants had been generous and more than fair and reasonable in instructing Mr Chan to assess the RDV on the assumption that the Lot can be redeveloped into a commercial/residential composite building pursuant to the government lease, the applicants had no submission in relation to Mr Chan’s assumption of the G/F as a shop unit in the EUV valuation.  I was sitting in the panel of the Tribunal hearing the Cheermark Investment Limited and Happy Enough Limited. I consider that, similar to the decisions in these 2 cases, the G/F can be used as a shop under the government lease of the Lot.  In the grant of leave to appeal by the Tribunal, it was decided that the Tribunal was not persuaded by the arguments for appeal submitted by the Director of Lands.  As at the date of this judgment, the said appeal is yet to be heard by the Court of Appeal and the Tribunal’s decisions in these 2 cases are effective.

23.  Further, even if shop use of the G/F breached the government lease, I consider that the EUV of the G/F could have reflected its then commercial use.  Since I agree that the G/F could be used as a shop under the government lease of the Lot and the EUV of the G/F could have reflected its then commercial use, I accept Mr Chan’s assumption and valuation of the G/F as a shop unit.

24.  Mr Chan updated his EUV assessments by a supplemental report dated 31 October 2016.  He said that he had adopted the latest property indices for time adjustment, had included 1 additional domestic comparable in his valuation, had further considered the internal condition of the units that had been subsequently inspected after his 1^st valuation report, and had also revised the conversion factor for the transformer room on G/F from 2/3 to 1 to reflect its then existing use for retail and storage purposes.

25.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept the revised EUVs as assessed by Mr Chan, and am satisfied that the value of the unit owned by each respondent is not less than fair and reasonable and not less than fair and reasonable when compared to the value of the applicants’ properties. The EUVs of all units in the Building as at the relevant date of valuation, i.e. 11 December 2015, are appended below: -

Floor	Flat	EUV ($M)		Floor	Flat	EUV ($M)		Floor	Flat	EUV ($M)
1	A	$4.06		2	A	$4.21		3	A	$4.23
1	B	$4.23		2	B	$4.51		3	B	$4.68
1	C	$4.27		2	C	$4.29		3	C	$4.31
1	D	$4.26		2	D	$4.42		3	D	$4.57
1	E	$4.14		2	E	$4.29		3	E	$4.31
1	F	$4.22		2	F	$4.51		3	F	$4.27
1	G	$4.11		2	G	$4.25		3	G	$4.28
1	H	$4.42		2	H	$4.58		3	H	$4.61
1	I	$4.19		2	I	$4.34		3	I	$4.36
1	J	$4.39		2	J	$4.55		3	J	$4.58
1	K	$4.14		2	K	$4.29		3	K	$4.31
1	L	$4.47		2	L	$4.63		3	L	$4.66
1	M	$3.01		2	M	$3.21		3	M	$3.23
1	N	$4.33		2	N	$4.48		3	N	$4.51
1	O	$3.22		2	O	$3.33		3	O	$3.35
4	A	$4.25		5	A	$4.31		6	A	$4.42
4	B	$4.56		5	B	$4.72		6	B	$4.61
4	C	$4.34		5	C	$4.53		6	C	$4.51
4	D	$4.46		5	D	$4.62		6	D	$4.78
4	E	$4.34		5	E	$4.40		6	E	$4.79
4	F	$4.56		5	F	$4.45		6	F	$4.47
4	G	$4.30		5	G	$4.36		6	G	$4.47
4	H	$4.63		5	H	$4.80		6	H	$4.68
4	I	$4.25		5	I	$4.45		6	I	$4.56
4	J	$4.60		5	J	$4.76		6	J	$4.64
4	K	$4.34		5	K	$4.40		6	K	$4.51
4	L	$4.68		5	L	$4.70		6	L	$4.87
4	M	$3.34		5	M	$3.26		6	M	$3.28
4	N	$4.53		5	N	$4.55		6	N	$4.57
4	O	$3.37		5	O	$3.28		6	O	$3.40
7	A	$4.44		8	A	$4.46		9	A	$4.48
7	B	$4.49		8	B	$4.65		9	B	$4.81
7	C	$4.67		8	C	$4.42		9	C	$4.72
7	D	$4.53		8	D	$4.55		9	D	$4.57
7	E	$4.53		8	E	$4.56		9	E	$4.58
7	F	$4.49		8	F	$4.38		9	F	$4.53
7	G	$4.49		8	G	$4.38		9	G	$4.68
7	H	$4.70		8	H	$4.72		9	H	$4.75
7	I	$4.58		8	I	$4.61		9	I	$4.63
7	J	$4.67		8	J	$4.69		9	J	$4.72
7	K	$4.53		8	K	$4.42		9	K	$4.58
7	L	$4.75		8	L	$4.78		9	L	$4.80
7	M	$3.29		8	M	$3.21		9	M	$3.33
7	N	$4.60		8	N	$4.62		9	N	$4.64
7	O	$3.52		8	O	$3.44		9	O	$3.45
10	A	$4.31		G		$118.98
10	B	$4.24		Roof		$4.77
10	C	$4.16
10	D	$4.15
10	E	$4.16
10	F	$4.11
10	G	$4.12
10	H	$4.30
10	I	$4.20
10	J	$4.27
10	K	$4.16
10	L	$4.48
10	M	$3.11
10	N	$3.96
10	O	$3.04						Total:		$770.27

26.  The total EUV of the Building is $770,270,000.

Whether Development of the Lot is Justified Due to “Age” and/or “State of Repair of the Building

27.  In determining the application, section 4(2) of the Ordinance empowers the tribunal to make an order for sale if it is satisfied that: -

(1)   the redevelopment is justified due to age or state of repair of the Building; and

(2)   the applicants have taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lot (including negotiating for the purchase of the undivided shares owned by the respondents on terms that are fair and reasonable).

28.  For the age and state of repair requirements, this Tribunal has taken into consideration the expert evidence of Mr Wong Chi Ming (“Mr CM Wong”), a structural engineer by profession, of CM Wong & Associates Limited and Mr Wong Wing Cheung Dennis (“Mr Dennis Wong”), a building surveyor by profession, of Prudential Surveyors International Limited adduced by the applicants. Mr CM Wong conducted a structural assessment of the Building and prepared a Structural Assessment Report dated 28 October 2016. Mr Dennis Wong conducted a condition survey of the Building and prepared a Condition Survey Report dated 28 October 2016. None of the respondents had adduced any expert evidence in this connection.    

29.  I accept the unchallenged evidence of the applicants in these respects.  I am satisfied that, based on the evidence of Mr CM Wong and Mr Dennis Wong, redevelopment of the Lot is justified due to the poor state of repair of the Building and the disproportionate cost to repair and maintain. Although regular repair could extend the life of the Building, such repair cost will increase over time.  I agree that such maintenance can bring about modest improvement only to the existing condition, and the Building would remain a sub-standard one. I am also satisfied that redevelopment of the Lot is justified due to the age of the Building.  This 56-year old Building is in a poor condition and has in fact come to the end of its design life. Its design has become obsolete over time in many aspects both physically and functionally and failed to conform to modern standards and requirements in many material respects.

Whether the Applicants Have Taken Reasonable Steps

30.  The applicants are under an obligation to take reasonable steps to negotiate on terms that are fair and reasonable for the purchase of all the undivided shares of the Lot under section 4(2)(b) of the Ordinance. 

31.  Before the commencement of the present proceedings, the applicants had made a batch of offers to the respondents on 18 January 2016. After the commencement of the present proceedings, the applicants had made further 3 batches of offers on 30 March 2017, 30 June 2017 and 24 July 2017.  Nevertheless, none of the offers was accepted.

32.  Ms Ngai submitted that all these offers, which were based on the then latest valuation of the Lot on existing use and redevelopment basis assessed by Mr Chan and had also reflected the respondents’ proportionate shares of the RDV of the Lot, were fair and reasonable.  Ms Ngai further submitted that the applicants had added 10%, 25% and 30% ex-gratia premium on the respondents’ proportionate shares of the RDV of the Lot in the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th batches of offers respectively to reflect the difference between the date of the offer and the valuation date of the RDV.

33.  In assessing the reasonableness of the offers, there is the following guidance from Ribeiro PJ of CFA in Capital Well Ltd v Bond Star Development Ltd (2005) 8 HKCFAR 579, at [33] and [36]: -

“33. In making that assessment the Tribunal is not conducting a valuation exercise. It does not need to adjudicate upon any disputes about the correct valuation principles to be applied. It does not itself arrive at any conclusion as to what figure represents the correct valuation. It merely needs to be satisfied that, on the evidence available, the offer falls within the range of what may broadly be regarded as fair and reasonable compensation for the interest in question. It is obviously necessary to recognise that there will often be differences of opinion on that matter……”

“36. ......We are of course not suggesting that it is necessary for the 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 each case, the offer falls within a band of what represents a fair and reasonable assessment of the value of the minority owner’s interest reflecting a proportionate share of the redevelopment value of the whole site……”

34.  There is no evidence before this Tribunal that Mr Chan’s assessments were faulted.  If the EUV and the RDV as determined in the judgment are taken into consideration for analysis, the 3^rd and 4^th batches of offers are higher than the respondents’ proportionate shares of the RDV of the Lot. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the offers made by the applicants fall within the range of what may broadly be regarded as fair and reasonable and the applicants have taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares of the Lot.

Order for Sale

35.  I am satisfied that redevelopment of the Lot is justified in terms of both age and state of repair of the Building.  I am also satisfied that the applicants had taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares of the Lot and had negotiated for the purchase of the respondents’ shares in their respective units on terms that are fair and reasonable.  In the circumstances, I agree that an order for sale should be granted in favour of the applicants.

Reserve Price for the Auction

36.  In the 2^nd supplemental report, Mr Chan adopted Residual Method to assess the RDV of the Lot as at 28 July 2017 at $1,401,000,000. Residual Method is the assessment of land value by deducting the development costs (including construction costs, professional fees, financial costs and profit, etc.) from the estimated gross development value (“GDV”) of the proposed development, as if completed, as at the date of valuation.

37.  As instructed by the applicants, Mr Chan assumed that the Lot could be redeveloped into a commercial/residential composite building pursuant to the government lease. Based on such assumption, Mr Chan opined that the optimum redevelopment on the Lot comprised a 25-storey commercial/residential composite building with retail shops and plant rooms on ground floor, club house and plant rooms on 1^st floor, and domestic units on 2^nd to 24^th floors.  Details of the hypothetical development with the proposed total gross floor area of 11,878.97 sq m (excluding 414 sq m green feature concessions) and plot ratio of about 9.3246, the GDV assessed (i.e. $386,000/sq m saleable area for shops on ground floor, and an average $245,000/sq m saleable area for domestic units on upper floors), the development costs adopted (i.e. average $39,312/sq m gross floor area) and the residual valuation were set out in the 2^nd supplemental report. The residual land value was assessed at $1,401,000,000, which is equivalent to an accommodation value of about $117,940/sq m gross floor area.

38.  Ms Ngai contended that the applicants have been generous and more than fair and reasonable in instructing Mr Chan to assess the RDV on the assumption that the Lot can be redeveloped into a commercial/residential composite building pursuant to the government lease of the Lot.  As discussed in the EUV valuation above, I consider that shop use on ground floor is allowed pursuant to the government lease of the Lot.  In any event, I agree that Mr Chan’s assumption in this connection for assessment of the RDV would not adversely affected the interest of the minority owners.

39.  Mr Chan said that he had also attempted to apply Direct Comparison Method to assess the RDV of the Lot, but no relevant comparable was identified.

40.  In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept that the market value of the Lot reflecting its redevelopment potential on its own, i.e. the RDV of the Lot, as at 28 July 2017 is $1,401,000,000, which should be the reserve price for the auction of the Lot.

Order

41.  By reason of the above, this Tribunal comes to the following decisions: -

(1)   This Tribunal is satisfied that redevelopment of the Lot is justified due to the age and state of repair of the Building, and that the applicants have taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lot including those of the respondents;

(2)   All the undivided shares in the Lot, the subject of the application, be sold by way of public auction for the purposes of redevelopment of the Lot;

(3)   Mr Chow Wing Kin Anthony and Ms Chow Suk Han Anna, nominated by the applicants, be appointed trustees (“the Trustees”) to discharge the duties imposed on trustees by the Ordinance in relation to the sale of the Lot and the Trustees be authorized to charge such remuneration for their services in accordance with the terms set out in the letter of Messrs Guantao & Chow Solicitors and Notaries dated 11 July 2017;

(4)   For the purposes of the sale of the Lot by public auction: -

(a)   The sale of the Lot be on the particulars and conditions of sale the same or substantially the same as those in the draft Particulars and Conditions of Sale to be approved and initialed by the Tribunal; and

(b)   The reserve price be set at $1,401,000,000;

(5)   Subject to further extensions that the Tribunal may subsequently allow upon the application of the purchaser of the Lot or its successor in title, the redevelopment of the Lot and the Building shall be completed and made fit for occupation within a period of 6 years after the date on which the purchaser of the Lot becomes the owner of the Lot; and

(6)   Liberty to the applicants, the respondents and the Trustees to apply to the Tribunal for further directions.

Costs

42.  I make a costs order nisi that the applicants do pay costs of these proceedings to the respondents on High Court scale, with certificate for 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.