OR PUI KWAN v. CHING PO YI AND ANOTHER

LDCS 1000/2023

[2026] HKLdT 18

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

LAND COMPULSORY SALE MAIN APPLICATION NO 1000 OF 2023

__________________________

__________________________

________________

CORRIGENDA

________________

Please note the following corrigenda for the Judgment dated 1 April 2026:

1.  Page 5, 1^st line, paragraph 10, “Mr Mok Yeuk Chi” should read “Mr Jonathan Lee”.

2.  Pages 24 to 25, paragraph 71, the table should be replaced by:

Comparable	Basement, No. 25 Staunton Street
Transaction Date	20 January 2021
OP Date	1965
Consideration	$13,000,000
Effective Area	55.37 sq m
Headroom	2.9 m
Effective Unit Rate	$234,784/sq m
Adjustment
Item	KF	Mr C W Wong	LT	Remarks
Time	-3.6%			No dispute
Location	-15%	-10%	-10%	Mr C W Wong’s view is taken
Age	-0.7%			No dispute
Size	-4%	-9.5%	-10%	Adopting LT’s approved effective area of the basement floor unit of 109.74 sq m and KF’s Threshold Approach of 2% for every 10 sq m difference
Street Exposure	-25%	-20%	-25%	The main entrance of the basement does not have frontage on GS.  KF’s view is taken
Internal Condition	-2%	0	-2%	No inspection has been made to the comparable.  Assuming the internal condition of it as “fair”, KF’s view is taken
Total Adjustment	-42.6%	-37.6%	-43%
Adjusted Effective Unit Rate	$234,784 x 0.57 = $133,827/sq m     say $134,000/sq m

3.  Pages 26 to 27, paragraph 73, the table should be replaced by:

Floor	Portion	Assignment Area   (sq m)	Approved Extended Area  (sq m)   (about)	Discount Factor as Falling within Common Area (*)	Conversion Factor	Effective Area     (sq m)
SB	SB1	10.47 (Workshop)	-	-	1/4	2.62
	SB2	-	14.69 (Workshop)	0.75	1/4	2.75
	SB3 – SB7	These portions are the Unauthorized Extended Area of the Building.  Any potential enhancement value should not be taken into account as the related UBW structures will cause obstruction to means of fire escape constituting obvious hazard or imminent threat to life or property and that the chance of enforcement action from the relevant authorities is not low.
B	B1	74.85 (Workshop)	-	-	1	74.85
	B2(a)	-	13.92 (Packing Space)	0.75	1	10.44
	B2(b)	-	3.3 (Covered Yard)	0.75	1/4	0.62
	B3	-	22.9 (Workshop)	0.75	1	17.18
	B4	-	6.8 (Covered Yard)	0.75	1/4	1.28
	B5 – B8	Same situation of SB3 –SB7 above.
	B9	Though the extended area has the approval of BD according to an A & A Plan, the structure has been demolished without authorization.  Thus there is no enhancement in value.
Sub-total						109.74

(Note*: Mr C W Wong suggests no discount is required.  KF suggests a discount factor of 0.1 is necessary.  The Tribunal considers a discount factor of 0.75 is reasonable to reflect that the respective area is part of the common area of the Building.)

4.  Page 27, 3^rd to 4^th lines, paragraph 74, “$137,000 / sq m x 104.37 sq m = $14,298,690 (say $14,300,000)” should read “$134,000 / sq m x 109.74 sq m = $14,705,160 (say $14,710,000)”.

5.  Pages 27 to 28, paragraph 75, the table should be replaced by:

Properties	Market Value (EUV)
Basement Unit (including Sub - Basement)	$14,710,000
Ground Floor Shops	$86,150,000
Sub-total of Non-domestic Units	$100,860,000
Sub-total of Upper Floor Domestic Units	$100,763,000
Total	$201,623,000
KF	($196,682,037)
Mr C W Wong	($219,664,000)

6.  Page 56, 2^nd line, paragraph 156, “$201,213,000” should read “$201,623,000”.

7.  Page 62, 2^nd line, paragraph 172(5), “HK$13,791,010” should read “HK$14,000,000”.

8.  Pages 67 to 68, paragraph 190, the table should be replaced by:

Respondent	Offer in 2022	EUV as determined by the Tribunal
R2 (4/F Block C)	$7,619,00018	$4,215,000
R5 (Basement of Block E, Block F & Sub-Basement)	$20,622,00019	$14,710,000

Dated this 29^th day of April 2026

¹⁸ (C2/386-394)

¹⁹ (C3/530-547)