LANADA (BVI) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. THUNDER SHARP LTD AND OTHERS

LDCS 9000/2020

[2021] HKLdT 11

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

LAND COMPULSORY SALE MAIN APPLICATION NO 9000 OF 2020

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

BACKGROUND

1.  This is the applicants’ application for an order for sale, for the purposes of redevelopment under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, Cap 545 (“the Ordinance”), of all the undivided shares of and in the Remaining Portion of sub-section 3 of section A of New Kowloon Inland Lot No 976 (“the 1^st Lot”), the Remaining Portion of section A of New Kowloon Inland Lot No 976 (“the 2^nd Lot”), the Remaining Portion of sub-section 5 of section A of New Kowloon Inland Lot No 976 (“the 3^rd Lot”), and the Remaining Portion of sub-section 2 of section A of New Kowloon Inland Lot No 976 (“the 4^th Lot”) (the 1^st Lot, the 2^nd Lot, the 3^rd Lot and the 4^th Lot are collectively referred to as “the Lots”), together with 2 buildings erected thereon known as Nos 227 and 229 Yee Kuk Street, Kowloon (“the 1^st Building”), and Nos 231 and 233 Yee Kuk Street, Kowloon (“the 2^nd Building”) (the 1^st Building and the 2^nd Building are collectively referred to as “the Buildings”).

2.  Each of the 1^st Building and the 2^nd Building is a 6-storey (i.e. excluding the cockloft attached to the ground floor) tenement block served by 2 common staircases. A domestic permit No 584 was issued for the Buildings on 27 October 1955, granting permission to occupy and use the Buildings for domestic purposes. According to the approved building plans, there are 2 units planned on ground floor (“G/F”) for non-domestic purpose and each of them is attached with a cockloft for storage, and 2 domestic units on each upper floor from 1^st floor (“1/F”) to 5^th floor (“5/F”) in each of the Buildings. Though the 2 buildings are adjoining, they are not interconnected.

3.  The 1^st Lot together with part of the 1^st Building (i.e. No 227 Yee Kuk Street) standing thereon is allocated 6 undivided shares; each floor is given 1 undivided share, making up a total of 6 undivided shares. The 2^nd Lot together with part of the 1^st Building (i.e. No 229 Yee Kuk Street) standing thereon, the 3^rd Lot together with part of the 2^nd Building (i.e. No 231 Yee Kuk Street) standing thereon and the 4^th Lot together with part of the 2^nd Building (i.e. No 233 Yee Kuk Street) standing thereon have the same allocation of undivided shares as that of the 1^st Lot together with part of the 1^st Building (i.e. No 227 Yee Kuk Street) standing thereon.

4.  According to the records of the Land Registry, 2^nd floor (i.e. “2/F”) of Yee Kuk Street in the 1^st Building has been sub-divided into 3 subdivided units [i.e. Portion A (1/3 of 1/6), Portion B (1/3 of 1/6) and Portion C (1/3 of 1/6)].

SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE – OWNERSHIP OF THE APPLICANTS

5.  The applicants filed a Notice of Application (“NOA’) on 18 May 2020, which was subsequently amended on 23 July 2020, re-amended on 4 November 2020 and re-re-amended on 27 January 2021. At the time of filing of the NOA, there were 7 respondents and the applicants owned 5 over 6 (i.e. 83.33%) undivided shares in the 1^st Lot, 4 and 2/3 over 6 (i.e. 77.78%) undivided shares in the 2^nd Lot (i.e. on average 80.56% in the 1^st Building), 5 over 6 (i.e. 83.33%) undivided shares in the 3^rd Lot, and 5 over 6 (i.e. 83.33%) undivided shares in the 4^th Lot (i.e. on average 83.33% in the 2^nd Building), meeting the threshold of 80% 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(2) of the Ordinance prescribes that an application under subsection (1) may cover (a) 2 or more lots where the majority owner owns not less than the percentage specified in subsection (1) of the undivided shares in each lot; or (b) 2 or more lots (i) on which one building is connected to another building by a staircase intended for common use by the occupiers of the buildings; and (ii) 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 stands, is not less than the percentage specified in subsection (1).

7.  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. 

8.  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 came into operation on 1 April 2010.  Section 3 of the Notice lowered the threshold for compulsory sale of specified classes of lots from 90% to 80%.  Those classes of lots include:

“a lot with each of the buildings erected on the lot issued with an occupation permit at least 50 years before the relevant date”

9.  Since the occupation permit of the Building was issued in 1955, i.e. more than 50 years before the date of application (i.e. 18 May 2020; the relevant date under the Notice), the applicable percentage is therefore 80%.

10.  I am satisfied that as at the date of application, the applicants owned on average more than 80% of the undivided shares in the 1^st Lot and 2^nd Lot (i.e. the 1^st Building), the 3^rd Lot and 4^th Lot (i.e. the 2^nd Building), and the Lots (i.e. the Buildings).  I am therefore satisfied the applicants are entitled to make the present application under section 3 of the Ordinance.

THE REMAINING RESPONDENTS

11.  At trial, the applicants own all undivided shares in the 1^st Lot, 80.56% undivided shares in the 2^nd Lot (i.e. on average 90.28% in the 1^st Building), all undivided shares in the 3^rd Lot, and 83.33% undivided shares in the 4^th Lot (i.e. on average 91.67% in the 2^nd Building). The applicants have acquired further undivided shares from the 1^st, 3^rd, 5^th and 6^th respondents and discontinued the proceedings against them.

12.  The following 3 respondents (collectively referred to as “the Remaining Respondents”) remain in the present action: -

Respondent		Premises
2nd Respondent	(“R2”)	1/F of No 229 Yee Kuk Street (“R2’s Property)
4th Respondent	(“R4”)	1/2 of Portion C on 2/F of No 229 Yee Kuk Street (“R4’s Property”)
7th Respondent	(“R7”)	1/F of No 233 Yee Kuk Street (“R7’s Property”)

13.  The Remaining Respondents are not represented and did not appear at trial.   

2^nd Respondent

14.  By a Deed of Gift dated 20 May 2010, Cheung Wai Ming Sean (“Mr Cheung”) became owner of R2’s Property. By a letter dated 4 July 2020 to the tribunal and the applicants’ solicitor, Ms Liao Hsiu-Hsing claimed to be Mr Cheung’s wife living in Guangdong and informed that Mr Cheung passed away on 26 September 2019 in Guangdong. By an order dated 14 July 2020, leave was granted to amend R2’s name as “The Personal Representative of Cheung Wai Ming Sean (張偉明) (Deceased”).  Nevertheless, up to the date of trial, there is no further information on grant of probate for Mr Cheung’s estate.

4^th Respondent

15.  As from 12 October 1983, Kan Ming and Chu Yuk Chiu became tenants in common in equal shares in Portion C on 2/F of No 229 Yee Kuk Street.  On 3 September 1998, Chu Yuk Chiu passed away, and on 29 March 2000, letters of administration for his intestate estate was granted to Kan Ming. On 17 August 2012, Kan Ming passed away, and on 28 October 2020, probate for Kan Ming’s estate was granted to Sing Siu Hong.

16.  Pursuant to the leave granted on 28 October 2020, the re-amended NOA names the 3^rd respondent (“R3”) as “The Personal Representative of Kan Ming (簡明) (Deceased) and R4 as “The Personal Representative of Chu Yuk Chiu (朱鈺釗) (Deceased). On 15 January 2021, Sing Siu Hong (as representative of Kan Ming’s estate) sold Kan Ming’s interest in Portion C on 2/F of No 229 Yee Kuk Street to the 1^st applicant, and the proceedings against R3 was discontinued on 20 January 2021.  However, up the date of trial, Sing Siu Hong has no power to deal with R4’s estate as the chain of representation is broken by reason of his intestacy or the failure to obtain probate of a will.

7^th Respondent

17.  By an assignment dated 10 April 1956, Lau Soon Yau became owner of R7’s Property. On 24 December 1960, Lau Soon Yau passed away, and by a grant of probate dated 18 April 1962, probate for his estate was granted to Chu Nui Tai and Kong Fung Ping as joint executrices.  Nevertheless, it was then discovered that Chu Nui Tai passed away on 13 October 1977 and Kong Fung Ping passed away on 13 May 2005, and no grant of probate or letter of administration has been issued for either of their estates.  In the circumstances, the applicants pursue against “The Personal Representative of Lau Soon (or Suen) Yau (劉孫猷) (Deceased) only.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

18.  The remaining issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

1) What was the respective existing use value (“EUV”) of all units in the Buildings, or in the respective buildings, as at 11 May 2020, the valuation date adopted in the application valuation report dated 15 May 2020, as assessed in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Ordinance?

2) 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?

3) Whether the applicants have 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?

4) If an order for sale should be granted, what should be the reserve price (i.e. redevelopment value (“RDV”) of the Lots, or the respective lots) for the purpose of auction sale?

19.  Since the application comprises 2 buildings and the applicants ask for orders of a combined sale of the Lots in one auction, the reserved price to be set at the RDV of the Lots as a merged site, and the respective EUV of all units in the Buildings to be adopted for apportionment of the proceeds of sale of the Lots, the tribunal is also required to determine whether the applicants’ suggestions are acceptable.

DETERMINATION OF THE EUV OF ALL UNITS IN THE BUILDING

20.  Pursuant to 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 shall determine the proper value. 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.  The applicant relies on the reports and valuations of Mr Charles CK Chan (“Mr Charles Chan”) of Savills Valuation and Professional Services Limited. In the application valuation report dated 15 May 2020, Mr Charles Chan explained the direct comparison method he adopted and the process of his assessment to arrive at the EUV of each unit in the Buildings as at 11 May 2020. Although he had not inspected all the units, he found unauthorized structures and enclosures (‘UBW”) in G/F of No 233 Yee Kuk Street, which is owned by the applicants, and assigned positive value to these UBW.

22.  Mr Charles Chan subsequently prepared a supplemental valuation report dated 16 September 2020, in which he reviewed the EUV of all units in the Buildings.  In the supplemental valuation report, he said he found UBW in G/F of Nos 227, 229 and 231 Yee Kuk Street too. Although he considers the UBW should have positive value, he in accordance with the instructions of the applicants prepared two scenarios of valuation, one with additional value from the UBW and another disregarding the UBW.

23.  I disagree to assign positive value to these UBW. After balancing the advantages and disadvantages of these UBW under the market reality approach, I consider a prudent purchaser would not pay for these UBW, which could not be rectified and are always subject to risks of enforcement. Further, even if these UBW would have positive value, such value (if any) should have been partly embedded in the transaction prices of the comparables too and therefore should have been at least partly reflected in the valuation by direct comparison method. Hence, if a positive value is assigned to the UBW in this instance, there should have to a certain extent double counting of the enhancement value (if any), which is unacceptable.

24.  At trial, Mr Charles Chan further updated his EUV assessment with reference to the latest time indices and his internal inspection to some more upper floor domestic units. He assesses the reference shop unit (i.e. G/F of No 229 Yee Kuk Street) at $193,000 per square meters and the reference domestic unit (i.e. 3/F of No 229 Yee Kuk Street) at $83,900 per square meters.  In the valuation scenario disregarding the UBW, he then compares the reference units with the other units in the Buildings and assesses the EUV of all units in the Buildings at $163,280,000.

25.  I accept the EUV of all units in the Buildings in the valuation scenario disregarding the UBW and assessed by Mr Charles Chan at trial, 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 of the Buildings and the Buildings as at the relevant date of valuation, i.e. 11 May 2020, are appended below: -

The 1^st Building

Address	Floor	Portion	EUV
No 227 Yee Kuk Street	G	-	$14,250,000
No 229 Yee Kuk Street	G	-	$14,110,000
No 227 Yee Kuk Street	1	-	$5,750,000
No 229 Yee Kuk Street	1	-	$5,920,000
No 227 Yee Kuk Street	2	-	$5,810,000
No 229 Yee Kuk Street	2	A	$2,570,000
No 229 Yee Kuk Street	2	B	$1,820,000
No 229 Yee Kuk Street	2	C	$1,570,000
No 227 Yee Kuk Street	3	-	$5,340,000
No 229 Yee Kuk Street	3	-	$5,500,000
No 227 Yee Kuk Street	4	-	$5,320,000
No 229 Yee Kuk Street	4	-	$5,320,000
No 227 Yee Kuk Street	5	-	$4,260,000
No 229 Yee Kuk Street	5	-	$4,360,000
		Sub-total	$81,900,000

The 2^nd Building

Address	Floor	Portion	EUV
No 231 Yee Kuk Street	G	-	$14,250,000
No 233 Yee Kuk Street	G	-	$14,110,000
No 231 Yee Kuk Street	1	-	$5,920,000
No 233 Yee Kuk Street	1	-	$5,920,000
No 231 Yee Kuk Street	2	-	$5,630,000
No 233 Yee Kuk Street	2	-	$5,630,000
No 231 Yee Kuk Street	3	-	$5,500,000
No 233 Yee Kuk Street	3	-	$5,500,000
No 231 Yee Kuk Street	4	-	$5,160,000
No 233 Yee Kuk Street	4	-	$5,010,000
No 231 Yee Kuk Street	5	-	$4,390,000
No 233 Yee Kuk Street	5	-	$4,360,000
		Sub-total	$81,380,000

26.  I accept the total EUV of the Buildings is $163,280,000.

SECTION 4(2) OF THE ORDINANCE - JUSTIFICATION AND REASONABLE STEPS

27.  Section 4(2) of the Ordinance provides as follows: -

“2. The Tribunal shall not make an order for sale unless, after hearing the objections, if any, of the minority owners of the lot the subject of the application under section 3(1) concerned, the Tribunal is satisfied that—

(a) the redevelopment of the lot is justified (and whether or not the majority owner proposes to or is capable of undertaking the redevelopment)—

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

(ii) on 1 or more grounds, if any, specified in regulations made under section 12; and

(b) the majority owner has taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the lot (including, in the case of a minority owner whose whereabouts are known, negotiating for the purchase of such of those shares as are owned by that minority owner on terms that are fair and reasonable).”

28.  The applicants must satisfy this tribunal the above statutory requirements are met; otherwise, an order for compulsory sale would not be granted.

Whether development of the Lots is justified due to the age and/or state of repair of the Building

29.  The applicants adduce expert evidence of Mr Sammy YN Chan (“Mr Sammy Chan”), a structural engineer, of Wong & Cheng Consulting Engineering Limited and Mr Benson SN Wong (“Mr Benson Wong”), a building surveyor, of Benson Wong & Associates Limited.  Mr Sammy Chan conducted a structural survey of the Building and prepared a Structural Assessment Report dated 16 September 2020.  Mr Benson Wong conducted a condition survey of the Building and prepared a Condition Survey Report dated 17 September 2020. 

30.  None of the respondents adduced expert evidence to rebut the reports complied by Mr Sammy Chan and Mr Benson Wong.

31.  Having considered the reports of Mr Sammy Chan and Mr Benson Wong, I accept their expert opinion. The Building, being erected more than 65 years ago, is in poor condition and has come to the end of its design life.  The design of the Building has become obsolete over time in many aspects, both physically and functionally, and fails to conform to modern safety standards and statutory requirements. 

32.  I am also of the view the Building is in poor state of repair and the costs of repair to bring the Building to tenantable condition is disproportionate to the costs of redevelopment. Even if repair works are carried out, such works will bring about a modest improvement only to the existing condition of the Building and the Building will continue remain a sub-standard one.

33.  By reason of the matters set out above, I am satisfied the redevelopment of the Building is justified.   

Whether the applicants have taken reasonable steps

34.  In assessing the reasonableness of the offers, I have considered the case of Capital Well Ltd v Bond Star Development Ltd (2005) 8 HKCFAR 578. In particular, I have considered paragraphs 33 and 36 of the judgment in which   Ribeiro PJ stated: -

“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……”

35.  The applicants have made an offer to each of R2, R4 (i.e. together with R3) and R7 on 2 March 2020. These offers were based on the then valuation of Mr Charles Chan and have reflected the then RDV attributable to the respective units owned by the Remaining Respondents.  In addition, the applicants have invited the Remaining Respondents on 18 May 2020 and 1 June 2020 to attempt mediation.  However, up to the date of trial, there is no response from the Remaining Respondents. Mr Jonathan Lee, counsel for the applicants, submits the applicants have already taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lots. I agree.

36.  Further, since (1) R2 in fact passed away and no grant of probate or administration was issued for his estate; (2) R4 passed away too and Sing Siu Hung (as personal representative of R3’s estate) has no power to deal with R4’s estate; and (3) R7 passed away and both executrices of R7’s estate also passed away without any grant of probate or administration, I accept that it is impossible for the applicants to negotiate with anyone with the necessary authority to sell R2’s Property, R4’s Property and R7’s Property.

37.  By reason of the matters set out above, I am satisfied the applicants have taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lots.

RESERVE PRICE FOR THE PUBLIC AUCTION

38.  By reason of being satisfied that redevelopment of the Lots is justified and that the applicants have taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lots, I am satisfied an order for sale should be granted in favour of the applicants.

39.  Since there is no relevant land sale transaction for direct comparison, Mr Charles Chan adopts residual method only to assess the RDV of the Lots as a merged site, instead of 2 independent sites, as at 31 December 2020. In the residual valuation, Mr Charles Chan opines that the optimum development on the Lots comprises a 24-storey commercial / residential composite building with retail units on G/F together with cockloft, club house and plant rooms on 1/F, and domestic units from 2/F to 23^rd floor. 

40.  Details of the hypothetical development with the net developable site area of 390.19 square meters, the proposed gross floor area of 3,292.23 square meters (excluding half of the areas for green features that are exempted in calculation) and plot ratio of 8.4375, the gross development value assessed (i.e. on average $210,000 per square meter saleable area for retail units on G/F, on average $26,000 per square meter saleable area for retail units on cockloft, and on average $217,000 per square meter saleable area for residential units on upper floors), the construction cost adopted (i.e. on average $41,041 per square meter gross floor area) and the residual valuation (i.e. development period of 2.5 years, stamp duty on residual land value at 4.25%, profit at 15% of costs, and interest rate at 4% per annum) are set out in his valuation report dated 8 January 2021.  He assesses the RDV of the Lots at $261,000,000.

RDV of the Lots as at 31 December 2020

41.  Having gone through Mr Charles Chan’s assessment in his valuation report, I accept his residual valuation except the construction cost and the gross development value of the G/F retail units together with cockloft.

42.  Mr Charles Chan assumes in his residual valuation the hypothetical development will be of high to very high quality.  In comparing with the comparable developments, I consider the construction cost adopted by him at $135,116,772 (i.e. $41,041 per square meter gross) is excessive.  Given that the subject is a relatively small-scale development in a traditional residential area, it is reasonable to assume in the residual valuation that the subject will have finishes slightly above high quality only. I consider the construction cost of $123,000,000, about 37,361 per square meter gross, is reasonable in this instance.

43.  I also consider his assessment of the G/F gross development value at $210,000 should be further adjusted at +5% (i.e. $220,500 per square meter) to reflect the general improvement of business condition upon completion of the hypothetical development. Since there are a number of redevelopment projects in the subject locality, the subject locality has been improving, and it is anticipated that subject retail units will have better business condition when the hypothetical development is completed. At that time, its nearby developments will have been completed too. Further, although the improvement of business condition would have been partly reflected in the comparable in the immediate area, I consider the business condition will further improve during the development period of the hypothetical development.

44.  In the conversion of the cockloft attached to the G/F retail units, I disagree to adopt the conversion rate at about 1/8 proposed by Mr Charles Chan. I consider the conversion rate of 1/8 is unreasonable. If 1/8 is adopted, the value of the cockloft is even lower than the average construction cost, and the value of flat roof and roof too, and the construction of cockloft will likely bring a negative impact on the residual land value. In the subject locality, being a traditional residential area with retail units serving mainly the local residents only, I consider the cockloft should be converted at say 1/3, about $73,500 per square meter. Accordingly, the RDV of the Lots would then be assessed at $276,000,000

45.  Based on the valuation of Mr Charles Chan and the above determinations, the Lots as a merged site are assessed at $276,000,000, equivalent to an accommodation value of about $83,834 per square meter (i.e. about $7,788 per square foot), which should be the reserve price for public auction.

SALE OF THE LOTS AS A MERGED SITE AND APPORTIONMENT

46.  From valuation perspective, the 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.  In addition, by looking at the achievable auction price alone, a higher reserve price would generally not prejudice the interest of minority owners. Hence, subject to a fair and equitable apportionment of the sale proceeds, I agree to assess the RDV on a merged site basis.

47.  Regarding the apportionment, I note basically the two buildings in the Lots are identical and there is no difference in their building density. In fact, the benefits from marriage value on a merged site basis could outweigh the drawbacks in this regard, if any, on apportionment. In the circumstances, I agree to apportion the sale proceeds in accordance with the respective EUV of all units in the Buildings, which would not prejudice the interest of the Remaining Respondents.

ORDERS

48.  For reasons given in this judgment, I have set out reasons why I am satisfied an order for sale should be granted and I therefore make the following orders: -

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

2) Mr Ma Ho Fai and Ms Hung Suet Shan Catherine, nominated by the applicants, 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;

3) The Trustees be authorized to charge such remuneration for their services in accordance with the terms set out in the letter of Messrs Woo Kwan Lee & Lo dated 13 January 2021;

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

a) the sale of the Lots as a composite site 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 $276,000,000;

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

6) The applicants 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 and once in a Chinese language newspaper (and in the Chinese language) circulating generally in Guangdong within 21 days from the date of the sealed judgment informing the 2^nd respondent, the 4^th respondent, the 7^th respondent and all persons claiming to be the owners of the Lots: -

a) that the tribunal has made an Order for sale of the Lots;

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

c) where and the times during which a copy of the Order for sale can be obtained;

7) 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

8) Liberty to the applicants, the 2^nd respondent, the 4^th respondent, the 7^th respondent and the Trustees to apply to the tribunal for further directions.

COSTS

49.  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 the date of this judgment.