FIRST MATE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHOR KWONG WAI AND OTHERS

LDCS 9000/2016

[2019] HKLdT 20

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

LAND COMPULSORY SALE MAIN APPLICATION NO 9000 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 the Remaining Portion of subsection 3 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“1^st Lot”), section I of subsection 3 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“2^nd Lot”), section H of subsection 3 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“3^rd Lot”), section G of sub-section 3 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot Not 1 (“4^th Lot”), and section A of subsection 3 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“5^th Lot”) (1^st Lot, 2^nd Lot, 3^rd Lot, 4^th Lot and 5^th  Lot are collectively referred to as “the Lots”), together with 3 buildings erected thereon known as Nos 39 & 41 Whampoa Street and Nos 12A & 12B Bulkeley Street (“1^st Building” standing on 1^st Lot), Nos 14 & 16 Bulkeley Street (“2^nd Building” standing on 2^nd Lot and 3^rd Lot), and Nos 18 & 20 Bulkeley Street (“3^rd Building” standing on 4^th Lot and 5^th Lot) (1^st Building, 2^nd Building and 3^rd Building are collectively referred to as “The Buildings”) respectively for the purposes of redevelopment under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, Cap 545 (“the Ordinance”).

2.  1^st Building, 2^nd Building, and 3^rd Building are not connected to each other.  1^st Building that is served by 2 common staircases is an 8-storey tenement block. An occupation permit No K5 dated 5 February 1957 was issued for 1^st Building granting permission to occupy its ground floor (“G/F”) for non‑domestic purpose and upper floors for domestic purpose.  According to the approved building plans, there were 4 shops planned on G/F and 4 flats planned on each of 1^st Floor (“1/F”) to 7^th Floor (“7/F”) of 1^st Building. Nevertheless, with reference to the land search records, 2/F of No 12B Bulkeley Street was further sub-divided into 3 flats (i.e. Flat A, Flat B and Flat C). 

3.  Each of 2^nd Building and 3^rd Building that is served by 2 common staircases is a 6-storey (excluding cockloft) tenement block. An occupation permit No 3K dated 11 June 1956 was issued for these two buildings granting permission to occupy them for domestic purpose.  Nevertheless, according to the approved building plans, there were 2 shops planned on G/F for non-domestic purposes together with 2 cocklofts respectively for storage only, and 2 flats planned on each of 1/F to 5^th Floor (“5/F”) of each building.   The cocklofts thereof are named as mezzanine floors in the land search records.

4.  1^st Lot together with 1^st Building standing thereon was allocated 32 undivided shares, and each of the 4 shops on G/F and each of the 4 flats on upper floors was given 1 undivided share (whilst each of the sub-divided flat of 2/F of No 12B Bulkeley Street was allocated 1/3 of 1 undivided share), making up a total of 32 undivided shares.  2^nd Lot together with parts of 2^nd Building standing thereon was allocated 6 undivided shares, and each of the shop on G/F and the flat on upper floors was given 1 undivided share, making up a total of 6 undivided shares.  The allocation of undivided shares in each of 3^rd Lot together with parts of 2^nd Building and 4^th Lot together with parts of 3^rd Building is the same as that in 2^nd Lot together with parts of 2^nd Building, whilst 5^th Lot together with parts of 3^rd Building is not subdivided in shares.

5.  The applicant filed a Notice of Application (“the NOA”) on 10 November 2016, which was subsequently amended and re-amended on 19 October 2017 and 4 June 2018 respectively.  At the time of filing of the NOA, the Buildings were over 50 years old, and the applicant owned 95.834% (i.e. 30.667 out of the total 32 undivided shares of 1^st Lot) of 1^st Building, on average 83.333% (i.e. 4 out of the total 6 undivided shares of 2^nd Lot and all undivided shares of 3^rd Lot) of 2^nd Building, and on average 83.333% (i.e. 4 out of the total 6 undivided shares of 4^th Lot and whole of 5^th Lot) of 3^rd Building.   In the premises, the applicant owned more than the threshold of 80% undivided shares of the Lots required for building aged 50 years or above.

6.  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 building erected on the lot being issued with an occupation permit at least 50 years before the date of the application”.  Since the occupation permits of the Buildings were issued in 1956 or 1957, i.e. more than 50 years before the date of application (i.e. 10 November 2016), the applicable percentage in the present proceedings is therefore 80%.

RESPONDENTS REMAINING

7.  At the time of application, there were 7 groups of respondents.  Since then, the applicant acquired further undivided shares from some of the respondents, and discontinued the proceedings against the 1^st respondents, the 2^nd respondent, the 3^rd respondents, the 5^th respondents and the 6^th respondent.  At the time of trial, the applicant owned all the undivided shares of 1^st Building (i.e. 1^st Lot), on average 91.667% of 2^nd Building (i.e. 2^nd Lot and 3^rd Lot), and on average 91.667% of 3^rd Building (i.e. 4^th Lot and 5^th Lot).  There are 2 respondents whose units and undivided shares have not yet been acquired by the applicant.

8.  The following are the 2 remaining live respondents: -

Respondent		Premises
4th Respondent	(“R4”)	4/F of No 14 Bulkeley Street (“R4’s Property)
7th Respondent	(“R7”)	4/F of No 18 Bulkeley Street (“R7’s Property)

9.  R4 has not filed anything in the present proceedings, and was granted leave to be excused from the trial.  Nevertheless, there was a Re-Amended Summons taken out by one Tam Siu Kwai (“Tam”) in the proceedings of HCMP 1377 of 2017, which was pending for registration against R4’s Property in the Land Registry as at 11 December 2018.  In light of the pending proceedings in HCMP 1377 of 2017, Ms Ngai, counsel for the applicant, submitted that if the Lots shall be sold pursuant to the Orders of the tribunal, the net proceeds of sale attributable to R4’s Property should be held by the Trustees to be appointed by the tribunal pending final determination of the proceedings in HCMP 1377 of 2017.  I agree.

10.  Except for a Notice of Opposition, R7 has not filed anything to oppose the application in the present proceedings.  On 11 September 2018, the applicant and R7 entered into a Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase (“PASP”) in respect of R7’s Property, but the parties subsequently cancelled the agreement on 22 January 2019 because R7 was unable to complete the sale of R7’s Property free from encumbrances. On 23 January 2019, R7 withdrew its Notice of Opposition, and was granted leave to withdraw its Notice of Opposition and to be excused from the trial.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

11.  The 2 live respondents were granted leave respectively to be excused from the trial, and they have not filed any evidence to oppose the application in the present proceedings.  Ms Ngai called the witnesses to prove the applicant’s case.  The applicant contended that all the requirements of the Ordinance had been satisfied and asked for an order for sale of the Lots.

12.  Nevertheless, the tribunal is required to determine the following issues under the Ordinance: -

(i) Whether the applicant has acquired the minimum undivided shares in the Lots or the respective lots which entitles it to make the application under the Ordinance?

(ii) Whether the redevelopment of the Lots or the respective lots is justified due to “age” and/or “state of repair” of the Buildings in accordance with section 4(2)(a) of the Ordinance?

(iii) What are the respective EUV of all units in the Buildings or the respective buildings as at 30 September 2016 as assessed in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Ordinance?

(iv) Whether the applicant has taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lots or the respective lots 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. RDV of the Lots or the respective lots for the purpose of auction sale)?

13.  Since the application comprises of 3 buildings and the applicant asked for orders of a combined sale of the Lots in one auction, the reserve price to be set at the RDV of the Lots as a merged site and the respective EUV of all the units in the Buildings to be adopted for apportionment of the proceeds of sale of the Lots, the tribunal is required to determine whether the applicant’s suggestions are acceptable.

WHETHER THE CONDITIONS FOR MAKING AN APPLICATION UNDER THE ORDINANCE ARE SATISFIED BY THE APPLICANT

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.  Section 3(2)(b) specifies that an application may also cover 2 or more lots, on which one building is connected to another building by a staircase intended for common use by the occupiers of the buildings, and where the average of (A) the percentage of the undivided shares owned by the majority owner in the lot or lots on which one of the buildings stands; and (B) the percentage of the undivided shares owned by the majority owner in the lot or lots on which the other of the buildings stand, is the not less than the percentage specified in section 3(1).

15.  As mentioned above, the Buildings were over 50 years’ old when the application was made.  The applicable threshold is 80%.  I am satisfied that as at the date of application, the applicant had already owned on average more than 80% of the undivided shares in the Lots.  In terms of each building of the Buildings, the applicant had also owned on average more than 80% of the undivided share in the respective lot or lots too.  The application was also accompanied by a valuation report, prepared by Mr Wong Chi Wai (“Mr CW Wong”) of Grandmax Surveyors Limited, assessing the EUV of each and every units of the Buildings on vacant possession basis without taking into account of the redevelopment potential of the lot(s) or the Lots as at 30 September 2016 (“Application Report”), which was within 3 months of the application.

16.  I agree that the applicant was entitled to make the application under section 3(1) and section 3(2)(b) of the Ordinance.

WHETHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT IS JUSTIFIED DUE TO “AGE” AND/OR “STATE OF REPAIR” OF THE BUILDING

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

(i) the redevelopment is justified due to age or state of repair of the existing development on the lot; and

(ii) the applicant had 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).

18.  For the age and state of repair requirements, the applicant adduced expert evidence of Mr Wong Chi Ming (“Mr CM Wong”) of CM Wong & Associates Limited, both a structural engineer and a geotechnical engineer, and Mr Benson Wong Sai Ning (“Mr Benson Wong”) of Benson Wong & Associates Limited, a building surveyor.  None of the respondents had adduced any expert evidence in this connection. 

19.  Mr CM Wong conducted a structural survey of the Buildings and prepared a Structural Assessment Report dated 12 December 2018.  Mr Benson Wong conducted a condition survey and prepared a Condition Survey Report dated 13 December 2018.  Having considered the evidence of Mr CM Wong and Mr Benson Wong, I am satisfied that redevelopment of the Buildings is justified due to their poor state of repair and the disproportionate costs of repair and maintenance.  Although regular repair could extend the life of the Buildings, repair costs will increase with time.  Further, I opine that maintenance can bring about a modest improvement only to the existing condition, and each building of the Buildings would remain a sub-standard one.  I am also satisfied that redevelopment of the Buildings is justified due to the age of the Buildings.  These 62 to 63-year old Buildings are in a poor condition and have in fact come to the end of their design life.  Their design has become obsolete over time in many aspects both physically and functionally and has failed to conform to modern standards and requirements in many material respects.

DETERMINATION OF THE EUV OF ALL UNITS IN THE BUILDINGS

20.  Under section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Ordinance, if there is a dispute between the parties on the EUV of the units as assessed in the application, 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.”

21.  Although there is no missing owner and the 2 live respondents have not made any submissions to oppose the application in the present proceedings, Ms Ngai submitted that the tribunal can review the EUV as in the case of missing owner because the schedule of property disclosed on the death of one Chung Hing for estate duty purposes did not cover R4’s Property and the identity of R4 may be in doubt.  I agree.

22.  In the Application Report, Mr CW Wong explained the direct comparison method he adopted and the process of his assessment to arrive at the EUV of each unit of the Buildings.  He had also prepared a supplemental report on 11 December 2018 (“Supplemental Report”) in which he reviewed the EUV of all the units in the Buildings as at 30 September 2016.  In the Supplemental Report, he valued the reference shop unit (i.e. G/F of No 12B Bulkeley Street) at $335,000 per square meters and the reference domestic unit (i.e. 3/F of No 14 Bulkeley Street) at $72,000 per square meters.  He then compared the reference units with the other units in the Buildings and assessed the EUV of all units in the Buildings at $342,928,000.

23.  I accept the EUV assessed by Mr CW Wong in the Supplemental Report and am satisfied that the value of the units owned by the respondents are not less than fair and reasonable and not less than fair and reasonable when compared with the value of the applicant’s properties.  The EUV of all units in each building and the Buildings as at the relevant date of valuation, i.e. 30 September 2016, are appended below: -

1st Building

Floor		Whampoa Street					Bulkeley Street
		39		41			12A		12B
G/F		$15,824,000		$18,236,000			$17,687,000		$15,825,000
1/F		$3,977,000		$3,945,000			$4,763,000		$3,455,000
2/F		$3,707,000		$3,872,000			$4,918,000		A: $1,328,000
									B: $1,525,000
									C: $1,059,000
3/F		$3,444,000		$3,416,000			$4,819,000		$3,508,000
4/F		$3,560,000		$3,719,000			$4,721,000		$3,619,000
5/F		$3,491,000		$3,278,000			$4,627,000		$3,366,000
6/F		$3,528,000		$3,483,000			$3,966,000		$3,124,000
7/F		$3,065,000		$2,968,000			$3,504,000		$3,057,000

 

2nd Building

3rd Building

Floor	Bulkeley Street					Floor		Bulkeley Street
	14		16					18		20
G/F	$21,204,000		$21,427,000			G/F		$21,259,000		$21,427,000
1/F	$4,660,000		$4,906,000			1/F		$4,807,000		$4,807,000
2/F	$4,812,000		$4,812,000			2/F		$4,717,000		$4,480,000
3/F	$4,495,000		$4,270,000			3/F		$4,405,000		$4,185,000
4/F	$4,187,000		$3,978,000			4/F		$4,102,000		$3,897,000
5/F	$3,279,000		$3,644,000			5/F		$3,392,000		$3,392,000

24.  The total EUVs of 1^st Building, 2^nd Building and 3^rd Building are $172,384,000, $85,674,000 and $84,870,000 respectively.  The total EUV of the Buildings is $342,928,000. 

WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN REASONABLE STEPS

25.  The applicant is 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 Lots under section 4(2)(b) of the Ordinance.

26.  The applicant had made 4 offers to R4 on 17 October 2016, 10 October 2017, 18 December 2018 and 24 January 2019 respectively, and the applicant and R7 had once entered into the PASP.  Ms Ngai submitted that the applicant had taken reasonable steps to acquire the remaining undivided shares of the Lots.  She further submitted that all the prices offered by the applicant to R4 are higher than the EUV of R4’s Property assessed by Mr CW Wong, and the 3^rd and 4^th offers are also higher than R4’s proportionate shares in the RDV of the Lots as at 14 January 2019 assessed by Mr CW Wong.

27.  In assessing the reasonableness of the offers, there is the following guidance from Ribeiro PJ of CFA in Capital Well[1]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……”

28.  I consider that the applicant’s offers to R4, which were based on professional valuation, do fall within a range of what may broadly be regarded as fair and reasonable. There is no evidence before this tribunal that Mr CW Wong’s assessments were faulted.  I also accept that the PASP with R7 is a proof of the reasonable steps taken for acquiring R7’s Property.

29.  I am satisfied that the applicant had taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares of the Lots.

ORDER FOR SALE

30.  I am satisfied that redevelopment of the Lots is justified in terms of age and state of repair of the Buildings.  I am also satisfied that the applicant had taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares of the Lots 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 applicant.

RESERVE PRICE FOR THE AUCTION

31.  Mr CW Wong adopted both residual method and direct comparison method to assess the RDV of the Lots as a merged site instead of 3 independent sites as at 14 January 2019.

32.  In the residual valuation, Mr CW Wong opined that the optimum development on the Lots comprised a 23-storey commercial / residential composite building with retail shops on G/F and 1/F, recreational facilities on 2/F, and domestic units from 3/F to 22/F.  Details of the hypothetical development with the proposed gross floor area of 5,852.88 square meters (excluding half of the areas for green features that are exempted in calculation) and plot ratio of 9, the gross development value assessed (i.e. on average $505,359 per square meter saleable area for shops on G/F, on average $106,453 per square meter saleable area for shops on 1/F and on average $220,000 per square meter saleable area for standard residential units on upper floors), the development costs adopted (i.e. on average $39,732 per square meter gross floor area) and the residual valuation were set out in his Supplemental Redevelopment Valuation Report dated 16 January 2019.  He assessed the RDV of the Lots by residual method at $626,000,000.

33.  In the valuation by direct comparison, Mr CW Wong compared the Lots with a nearby site (i.e. Nos 30 – 44 Gillies Avenue South and Nos 75 & 77 Baker Street), which was ordered by the tribunal for compulsory sale and was sold in a public auction on 31 July 2018.  He applied adjustments for development scale and time with reference to Private Domestic Price Indices (All Classes) published by Rating and Valuation Department, and assessed the site value of the Lots at $606,000,000.

34.  While I have reservation to adopt a site comparable that was subject to compulsory sale, I disagree to adjust time factor of site comparable with reference to time index of completed property. Value of land is derived from its development potential, and the changes in price of land are generally different from the changes in price of completed property, which had been commented by Member Pang in Able Luck Development Ltd and Others v Public Global Investments Ltd and Others, LDCS 7000/2014 (6 October 2017) at [104 & 105].

RDV of the Lots as at 14 January 2019

35.  Having gone through Mr CW Wong’s assessments in his Supplemental Redevelopment Valuation Report, I accept his residual valuation, which assessed the RDV of the Lots at $626,000,000, equivalent to an accommodation value of about $106,956 per square meters (i.e. about $9,937 per square feet).

Sale of the Lots as a Composite Site

36.  Ms Ngai submitted that the application comprises of all three buildings standing on the Lots and hence the Lots should be sold together by one public auction.

37.  In the recently decided land compulsory sale cases Asia Charming Ltd v Kar Shing Capital Resources Ltd and Others[2] and Fairbo Investment Ltd v Leung Chit, The Person Appointed by Order and Another[3], I have stated in the judgments that whether the reserve price should be set on a merged site basis or an aggregate of individual site values of lots basis is arguable, but I finally agreed in both cases to set the reserve price on a merged site basis because of their specific circumstances.

38.  Similar to Asia Charming and Fairbo Investment, there is no dispute on this issue in the present proceedings. From valuation viewpoints, value of a merged site, which would release marriage value if any, is generally higher than the aggregate of individual site values of the lots.  By looking at the achievable auction price alone, a higher reserve price would generally not prejudice interest of minority owners.  Hence, subject to a fair and equitable apportionment of the sale proceeds that will be discussed in the paragraphs below, I agree the RDV as assessed at $626,000,000 on a merged site basis should be the reserve price for auction of the Lots.

APPORTIONMENT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS

39.  Even though the reserve price is set on a merged site basis, there are questions on apportionment of sale proceeds.  Ms Ngai submitted that the respective EUV of all the units in the Buildings as determined by the tribunal should be adopted for apportionment of the sale proceeds of the Lots. There is also no dispute on this issue in the present proceedings.  However, unlike those in Asia Charming and Fairbo Investment,densities of the buildings in the Lots are not similar.  1^st Lot (1^st Building), a Class B site, is an 8-storey tenement block with relative greater building bulk, whilst each of 2^nd & 3^rd Lots (2^nd Building) and 4^th & 5^th Lots (3^rd Building), a Class A site, is a 6-storey (excluding cockloft) tenement block only with relative lesser building bulk. 

40.  If EUV of all units in the buildings with different densities of a merged site are adopted for apportionment of sale proceeds, there could have the possibility that the aggregate of proportionate shares in the RDV of the merged site attributable to the units in the building with lesser building bulk is less than the RDV of this building only if it is redeveloped individually.

41.  No doubt, if each of 2^nd Building and 3^rd Building is redeveloped individually, their respective site value would be lower because of lower efficiency for a smaller site of 195.09 square meters only, whilst the Lots as a merged site has an area of 650.32 square meters.  The plot ratio of a composite building on a Class A site in this area would be lower too if the maximum domestic plot ratio at 7.5 under town planning control is firstly utilized.  In consideration of the benefits from marriage value on a merged site basis, and the drawbacks to the units in 2^nd Building and 3^rd Building in the proposed apportionment if any because of their lesser building bulk, I consider that broadly speaking the owners of the units in 2^nd Building and 3^rd Building would not be prejudiced in the proposed apportionment.  The differences in building density in this case appears not to be substantial as that the drawbacks in the regard if any could outweigh the benefits from marriage value.  I agree to apportion the sale proceeds in accordance with the respective EUV of all the units in the Buildings, which appears not to prejudice the interest of the minority owners in the present proceedings.

ORDER

42.  By reason of the above, this tribunal comes to the following decisions: -

(i) This tribunal is satisfied that redevelopment of the Lots is justified due to the age and state of repair of the Buildings, and that the applicant has taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lots including those of the respondents;

(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;

(iii) Mr Chow Wing Kin Anthony and Ms Chow Suk Han Anna, nominated by the applicant, be appointed the trustees (“the Trustees”) to discharge the duties imposed on them as trustees by the Ordinance in relation to the sale of the Lots, 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 dated 5 December 2018;

(iv) For the purposes of the sale of the Lots by public auction: -

(a) the sale of the Lots as a whole be on the particulars and conditions of sale the same or substantially the same as those set out in the draft Particulars and Conditions of Sale to be approved and initialed by the tribunal; and

(b) the reserve price be set at $626,000,000.

(v) The respective EUV of all the units in the Buildings as determined by the tribunal be adopted for apportionment of the proceeds of sale of the Lots.

(vi) The net proceeds of sale attributable to R4’s Property be held by the Trustees pending final determination of the proceedings in HCMP 1377 of 2017;

(vii) The applicant do publish notices once in a Chinese language newspaper (and in the Chinese language) and once in an English newspaper (and in the English language) circulating generally in Hong Kong within 7 days from the sealed judgment informing all persons claiming to be the owners of the Lots: -

(a) that the tribunal has made Orders for sale of the Lots;

(b) that the Lots be sold together by one public auction; and

(c) where and the times during which copies of the Orders for sale can be obtained.

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

(ix) Liberty to the applicant, the respondents and the Trustees to apply to the tribunal for further directions.

COSTS

43.  The applicant did not ask for costs. I make a costs order nisi that there be no order as to costs.  Unless any parties apply by summons to vary, the costs order nisi shall be made absolute upon expiry of 14 days from today.

[1] Capital Well Ltd v Bond Star Development Ltd (2005) 8 HKCFAR 578, [2005] 4 HKLRD 363

[2] LDCS 5000/2016, [2018] HKLdT 44, 13 June 2018, §§60-63

[3] LDCS 23000/2014, [2018] HKLdT 57, 26 July 2018, §§39-40