Ko Lai Mui t/a Cheung Shing Mirror v. Director of Lands

Crown Lands Resumption
Reference No. 6 of 1995

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

HEADNOTE

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

Property law - Crown Lands Resumption - Mirror and Worship Paraphernalia 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 $1.21 million

Ground floor rented premises used as shop selling mirrors, picture framing and Chinese religious worship paraphernalia resumed by the Crown for urban redevelopment. The applicant proprietress claims, inter alia, loss of goodwill at $2.4 million, loss of profits at $1 million, loss on forced sale of stock and tools at $641,460 and loss of fixtures and fittings at $740,200. The applicant does not produce independent evidence on past business profits. Instead, she equates the profits of her business with an estimate of amount needed to maintain her extended family on the ground that all the profits from her business went to household expenses. The respondent disputes every large item of claim as being unsubstantiated. Evidence, admitted by the applicant, shows that the applicant's daughter operates a shop of very similar nature at premises across the street opposite the resumed premises after the applicant ceased business. The respondent contends that the applicant continues business through this new shop. In view of the meagre amount 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 $584,000 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) The new business operated by the applicant's daughter cannot be treated as a continuation of the applicant's business since it is a separate business entity and the daughter, being of majority age, should be regarded as a free agent trading on her own account. (3) In the absence of reliable evidence on the actual living standard of the applicant's family, the applicant's assessment of goodwill based on profits equated with household expenditure rejected; relying on trading accounts previously submitted by the applicant to the government, annual profitability assessed at $260,000 which, using a multiplier of 2, fixes loss of goodwill at $520,000 and loss of profits at $160,000. (4) The applicant's valuation of her closing stock and tools at over $600,000 rejected. Auction proceeds at $17,000 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 quantity. Treating the auction price as representing the post useful life residuary value of the stock and tools, market value of the stock and tools determined at 10 x $17,000 = $170,000. (5) After deducting part of the claim not supported by documentary evidence of payment and allowing for depreciation, value of fixtures and fittings determined at $244,000. (6) Adding other items allowed, total compensation determined at $1.21 million.

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF HONG KONG

(Crown Lands Resumption Reference No. 6 of 1995)

_______________

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

The Applicant is the sole proprietress of a shop known as Cheung Shing Mirror ("the business") at rented premises situated at No. 42H, Ground Floor, Pak Tai Street, Ma Tau Kok ("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 carry on the business 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 valuers of any speciality to help her to prepare her case. The Tribunal has also 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. Under section 10(2)(d) of the Ordinance, the Applicant may be awarded compensation 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	2,400,000.00
Loss of profits 1992-94	1,000,000.00
Loss of profit rent	To be assessed
Loss on forced sale of stock and tools	641,460.00
Loss of fixtures, fittings and decoration	740,200.00
Transportation fee	30,000.00
Auction ground storage and security	28,000.00
Auctioneer's charges	13,424,80

4. The general position taken by Mr. Lam, counsel for the Respondent, is that the Applicant was not a truthful or credible witness. Her evidence and many items of her claim should be rejected or reduced. Mr. Lam contends that compensation should be assessed on the basis of re-location of the business. 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, Mr. Lam suggests that compensation should be as follows:-

(a) If on total extinguishment basis, at most

	HK$
Loss of goodwill	240,000.00
Loss of profit rent	59,000.00
Loss on forced sale of stock	80,000.00
Loss of plant and machinery	18,385.00
Loss of fixtures, fittings and decoration	149,000.00
Transportation cost	10,000.00
Auction ground storage and security	14,000.00
Auctioneer's charges	13,425.00
	583,810.00
Say	584,000.00
	==========

(b) If on relocation of business basis

	HK$
Loss of profit rent	59,000.00
Temporary loss of profits	74,250.00
Loss of fixtures, fittings and decoration	149,000.00
Transportation cost	10,000.00
Auction ground storage and security	14,000.00
Auctioneer's charges	13,425.00
	319,675.00
Say	320,000.00
	==========

5. Before we proceed further, we should point out that 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, a knowledge of the background helps us to appreciate 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. All the buildings we have had to consider were no 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. 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. 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. 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. Earlier, the Housing Society had begun to buy out some of the landlords and tenants in the area. After the resumption was gazetted in July 1992, the intention clearly was all the 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 postponed first to the end of 1992, then to the beginning of 1993, then to September 1993 and eventually to April 1994. 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. 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. 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. 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 under separate headings.

Total Extinguishment

10. The Respondent has, in fact, in other related cases challenged the parties in those cases their claim for loss of goodwill based on total extinguishment of business. We thought we have explained our approach convincingly to the parties in earlier cases. However, since the same issue is raised again, we feel obliged to address the issue with the required attention. 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."

11. We have pointed out in other cases that goodwill consists of the elements of personality and location. In some cases, the element of location may be far more important than personality. The most charming proprietor would not be able to generate business at a location where there is no or lesser demand for the goods or services the business provides. Once it re-locates, the business is in another catchment area where even if the same kind of clientele is there the competition scenario may be quite different. There may be incalculable loss of profits to be compensated. Moreover, the initial costs of setting up elsewhere cannot be ignored. 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. Nor can we assume that an operator may readily take over a similar undertaking in another area. It appears implicit in the Privy Council's advice that a business operator should not be expected to relocate if he does not have adequate funds of his own. 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.

12. Mr. Lam, counsel for the Respondent, says that the business has relocated. Indeed, there is evidence relating to a shop named New Cheung Shing Mirror ("New Cheung Shing") on the Ground Floor of 59 Pak Tai Street, just opposite what used to be the subject premises, which commenced business on 1st May 1994. The registered proprietress of New Cheung Shing, Yeung Wan Na, is admittedly the eldest daughter of the Applicant. Mr. Lam considers New Cheung Shing the continuation of the business at new premises. The Applicant says that the business did not relocate because she could not secure suitable premises to move to, either available premises were too expensive or the landlord of vacant premises refused to let for her kind of business. In regard to New Cheung Shing, the Applicant is adamant that she has nothing to do with it.

13. As we have observed earlier, relocation is not as simple as merely finding alternative accommodation. It is not disputed that the business was at least in part connected with Chinese religious worshipping. It is quite possible that landlords of Christian faith or other Chinese religious sects may not want to let to the Applicant. We have very little information as to how New Cheung Shing came into being. Although Miss Yeung is the daughter of the Applicant, she is over 25 and must be treated as a free agent unless there is proof of otherwise. We may, albeit tenuously, infer that since the Applicant and her daughter still live under the same roof Miss Yeung was encouraged or even helped by the Applicant in starting New Cheung Shing. But this is not enough to equate New Cheung Shing with the old Cheung Shing. As a matter of official record, New Cheung Shing is a separate and distinct identity from the business. We cannot rule out the possibility that the young lady is more resourceful, in terms of finance and entrepreneurship, than her mother. She may very well have beaten her mother to getting nearby suitable premises to set up a new business that taps the market her mother used to have. The Applicant maintains that she does not work at New Cheung Shing. We think the Applicant would have to be at the premises of New Cheung Shing often enough if she was carrying on business 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 Cheung Shing. 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

14. The method we adopt to determine the goodwill of a business affected by resumption 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 all 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 business premises not been resumed. Then, if appropriate, the product is discounted to take into account the fact that the business operator will have the sum representing capitalized profits immediately available for investment or other use.

15. The business had been operating at the subject premises since 1987. The business was run by the Applicant herself and her husband. They did not have any hired help. The Applicant has some work sheets showing the turnover of the business for the years 1987-89. See pp. 17-39 of Exhibit A2. She says she no longer has more recent trading accounts or tax records. She argues that because she made enough to support her family including her elderly parents, herself, her husband and four daughters over the years, her household budget would be a reliable indication of the revenue from the business. According to her evidence, it would take $700,000 to $800,000 per year to maintain the whole family and that should be the range of profits the business was making. In the absence of reliable evidential support in relation to the living standards of the Applicant's family, we reject the Applicant's own assessment.

16. Mr. Sham, expert for the Respondent, is able to rely on accounts submitted by the Applicant previously to assess the average annual gross profits of the business at $230,545, and $297,000 for the year 1992-93. He takes $297,000 as the base figure, deducts therefrom interest on capital (8.5% on the estimated value of the Applicant's trading stock) and annual profit rent to get $240,000 as the goodwill of the business. See pp. 4-5 of his report Exhibit R7. Broadly speaking, we are in agreement with Mr. Sham's approach. However, for reasons we have given 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, we do not think this is a case where deduction for interest on capital is appropriate. If the annual profit rent of $38,256 is deducted from $297,000, we have a net base figure of $258,744.

17. 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 experts, the market rent for the subject premises should be $16,188 per month. Using this figure, annual profits should be $16,188 x 12 = $194,256. This is considerably less than the result obtained above; but as we have mentioned earlier, the rental cost approach is a measure of minimum expected return; the actual return can be higher. We, therefore, adopt $260,000 as the base figure which is also more consistent with the expected return for a couple who worked long hours each day for seven days a week.

18. Since the Applicant's tenancy had just under two years unexpired term at the time of resumption, we would adopt a multiplier of 2. Accordingly, we determine the goodwill of the business at $0.26 million x 2 = $520,000.

Loss of Profits

19. The Applicant estimates loss of profits for the period from 1992 to 1994 at $1,000,000. However, there is no objective evidence to substantiate her claim. Instead, documents submitted by the Applicant to the authorities indicate that she had reported taxable profits of $177,061 for the year 1992-93. The Applicant maintains that she suffered a loss for the year 1993-94, which she cannot now quantify, because her customers in the neighbourhood affected by the resumption had moved out of the area.

20. We understand that most of the residents affected by the Scheme were cleared in late 1992 or very early 1993. It is safe to assume that the people affected by the Scheme would not buy new worshipping cabinets or shrines, or have new pictures framed, after they received the notice of resumption; these would be done for the new home. The adverse effect of the resumption on the business must have started as early as July 1992 and stabilized by the middle of 1993 the latest. It follows that the reported profits of the business for the year 1992-93 more or less reflects the true effect of the resumption. We believe the Applicant should have made at least the same level of taxable profits in the year 1993-94 as in the year 1992-93.

21. In the premises, we calculate the Applicant's loss of profits for 1992-93 and 1993-94 at $(260,000 - 180,000) x 2 = $160,000.

Profit Rent

22. 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. The Respondent's expert suggests a unit rate of $350 per sq. m. for the ground floor area for this part of Pak Tai Street irrespective of any yard or cockloft. This would produce a market rent of $16,188 per month for the subject premises and profit rent of $3,188 per month or $58,914 for the entire unexpired term of the tenancy for the Applicant. We have no reason to reject the opinion of the Respondent's expert.

23. Accordingly, we determine the Applicant's loss of profit rent at $59,000.

Trading Stock

24. The business had a stock of cabinets, shrines, artifacts and even joss sticks for Chinese religious worshipping and sundry materials for picture framing. In addition, there were miscellaneous tools of the trade. 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 108 items of stock and 85 tool items; see the inventory lists and photos in Exhibit R3. The whole lot fetched $17,000 only at the public auction in May 1994. The Applicant puts the value of her entire trading stock at $587,438 and tools at $71,022. For valuation 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 attach little weight to her estimates. Miss Cheng, expert for the Respondent, at first valued the trading stock and tools at $212,155. However, after cross-examination by the Applicant, she re-checked certain items and revised the valuation to $217,882. We can understand the difficulties Miss Cheng had in the valuation exercise because she did not have the opportunity to inspect the stock and tools and so assessment had to be made on a number of assumptions or suppositions which, the Applicant has been able to demonstrate, are not necessarily correct.

25. Specifically in relation to the value of the Applicant's stock, Mr. Lam has submitted that it is highly likely that the bulk of the stock had been relocated for use in New Cheung Shing and only a small portion thereof was put up for auction. Indeed, during the trial, there were strenuous efforts by way of cross-examination and rebuttal evidence to discredit the Applicant. At that time, we did indicate to counsel that it was unnecessary to mount such attacks at such length. It has been seen in previous related cases that the Tribunal does not rely on any applicant's bare assertions. We do endeavour to use independent yardsticks to assess or to cross-check claims. Had counsel studied the approach of the Tribunal in earlier cases, he would have discovered that we have been consistently able to value compensation objectively in these related cases. In assessing compensation for loss on forced sale of stock, we have from the very first related case we dealt with consistently regarded auction prices as a dependable function of the market value of the goods sold. If indeed valuable stock had been unaccountably siphoned off, this would be reflected in the auction price. In deference to counsel's submission, and in fairness to the Applicant, we examine the validity of the same approach in this case.

26. 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 $17,000, which is even much less than the value assessed by Miss Cheng. 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 business operators 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 operators 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. We think the explanation may be that many of the items of stock connected with Chinese religious worship do not even have scrap value because they were made of wood. Whereas metallic articles may be recycled through the melting plant, there is now hardly a market for firewood. The Applicant also says that some of the items were blessed by a ceremony specific to her religious sect and hence may be of no use to traders belonging to another sect. Moreover, some of the wooden articles, glass and chinaware were chipped or broken during transportation to the auction site. But then we wonder why someone should bid for the whole lot, wooden or glass, blessed or unblessed? The Applicant admits that she continued trading after stock taking by the Lands Department officer, so part of the stock might have been sold subsequently but before the auction. For all these reasons, 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 reflection of the quantity and quality of the trading stock and tools.

27. Miss Cheng and other valuers generally assign a residuary value equivalent to 10% of the purchase cost to goods which have passed their useful life. On this basis, the auction price in this case may be taken as representing the residuary value of all the items on sale. In view of the special circumstances in this case, we decide that the best we can do is to apply a factor of 10 to the auction price to arrive at a value of $170,000 for all the trading stock and tools. Accordingly, we determine compensation for loss for forced sale of the Applicant's trading stock and tools at $(170,000 - 17,000) = $153,000.

Fixtures and Fittings

28. The Applicant claims $740,200 for decoration expenses incurred over a number of years on the subject premises. Of this sum, only $488,000 is supported by documents. The Respondent's surveyor relies on an inventory of the fixtures and fittings found at the subject premises in September 1993 but excludes certain items relating to illegal structures, applies 10% per annum depreciation for 5 years and arrives at a value of $149,000.

29. In our view, illegal fixtures and fittings should be excluded. However, we have no concrete evidence that any structure in this case was illegal. Thus, we do not propose to exclude any item from calculation on account of illegality. But, as we have done in previous related cases, where an item of claim is only partially supported by documentary proof, the part or parts which is not so supported but amounting to a very substantial sum should be treated as suspect. For the present item, we only accept that part which is supported by receipts. Adopting the rate of 10% per annum depreciation for 5 years on $488,000, we determine compensation for fixtures and fittings at $244,000.

Miscellaneous Items

30. The Applicant further claims transportation charges for auction at $30,000 auction exhibition ground and security charges at $28,000 and auctioneers' fees at $13,424.80. The claims for transportation, auction exhibition ground and security charges are not supported by receipts. The claim for auctioneers' fees, which is not really disputed, is supported by a copy of the receipt at p. 15 in Exhibit A2. However, the Respondent does not accept the amounts claimed for transportation fees and auction exhibition ground and security charges. Mr. Sham in his report Exhibit R7 worked out the costs for transportation based on a number of assumptions. Taking into account the bulky and fragile nature of the articles to be moved, we have no reason to disallow the claim for $30,000 for transportation charges which is fairly modest compared with similar claims that have arisen from the same Scheme. 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.

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

	HK$
Loss of goodwill	520,000.00
Loss of profits 1992-94	160,000.00
Loss of profit rent	59,000.00
Loss on forced sale of stock and tools	153,000.00
Loss of fixtures, fittings and decoration	244,000.00
Transportation fee	30,000.00
Auction ground storage and security	28,000.00
Auctioneer's charges	13,424.80
	1,207,424.80
say
	1,210,000.00
	============

The Order

32. Accordingly, we determine compensation for the Applicant at $1,210,000. 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 $6,000 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.