DATA KEY LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

LDLR 6/2009

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

LANDS RESUMPTION APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2009

_______________

_______________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Background

1.  The Applicant was the registered owner of Ground Floor, No. 37 Pine Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“the Subject Property”) and the Respondent was the resumption authority. The Subject Property was resumed by the Government under the Lands Resumption Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) for the implementation of the Development Scheme TKT/2/001 of the Urban Renewal Authority vide Government Notification No. 7103 dated 23 October 2007. The date of resumption was 2 February 2008.

2.  This Application was made pursuant to section 10(2) of the Ordinance for determination of the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Applicant. There was no dispute that such amount shall be the open market value of the Subject Property on the date of resumption as more particularly defined in sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Ordinance. This Tribunal is therefore asked to determine the open market value of the Subject Property according to those well established statutory principles. The parties also agreed to adopt the definition of “open market value” from the Valuation Standards on Properties (1^st Ed. 2005) published by the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, namely:-

“Market value is the estimated amount for which a property should be exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgably, prudently and without compulsion”

3.  For determination of the quantum of compensation, in fact both parties accepted that the following statutory provisions of the Ordinance apply in the present case:-

“Section 10

…….

(2) The Tribunal shall determine the compensation (if any) payable under subsection (1) on the basis of-

(a)     the value of the land resumed and any buildings erected thereon at the date of resumption;”

“Section 11

(1) When any property is resumed, the Lands Tribunal in determining the compensation to be paid and in estimating the value of the land resumed and of any buildings thereon, may

(a)     take into consideration the nature and existing condition of the property, and the probable duration of the buildings in their existing state, and the state of repair thereof; ……”

“Section 12

……

(d)     ……, the value of the land resumed shall be taken to be the amount which the land if sold by a willing seller in the open market might be expected to realize.”

4.  In order to assist this Tribunal to determine the open market value of the Subject Property, the parties called for expert evidence. The Applicant called for the evidence of Miss Sat, Wei Ling, MRICS, FHKIS, Chartered Valuation Surveyor and the Respondent called for the evidence of Mr. Lai, Raymond W. C., MRICS, MHKIS, Chartered Valuation Surveyor.

5.  I am satisfied that both Miss Sat and Mr. Lai were duly qualified and had sufficient experience in valuation, and in particular, for resumption matters. I therefore accept both of them to give expert evidence in this Tribunal.

The Subject Property

6.  The Subject Property was a ground floor corner shop in a 9-storey tenement building. The building was completed in 1961 and was situated at the junction of Pine Street and Ivy Street in the Tai Kok Tsui area. There was a mixture of old and new composite buildings in the vicinity. It was not in dispute that the best use of the Subject Property was for retail purposes.

7.  According to the evidence of the Applicant, it acquired the Subject Property in 1990. For the purpose of achieving a higher rental, the Subject Property was physically sub-divided into 4 smaller shops by brick walls. No evidence was adduced to suggest that the erection of these walls was unauthorized and I therefore assume that these walls were built legally. The Applicant also said that these 4 sub-divided shops were leased to 4 different tenants in the early nineties. Later in around 1998, one of the sub-divided walls was demolished leaving only 3 sub-divided shops behind. 2 of the 3 sub-divided shops were taken up by a noodle shop and the remaining one was taken up by another tenant. The state of affairs continued until the date of resumption when the Subject Property was reverted to the Government.

Sub-division of the Subject Property

8.  Owing to the fact that the Subject Property was physically sub-divided into 3 smaller shops on the date resumption, the Applicant, upon professional advice from surveyors, suggested that the valuation of the Subject Property for its market value should be undertaken on the basis of 3 smaller shops (“ the “3 shops” basis”) instead of a single unit (“ the single unit approach”). The Respondent, however, opposed to such an approach and suggested that it was wrong in law to do so.

9.  Miss Wu, Counsel for the Respondent, submitted that, at law, the Applicant was, in fact, the registered owner of 1 undivided share out of the total 63 undivided shares of the Kowloon Inland Lot No. 10403, on which the building was erected and not just the physical subject matter of the shop itself. The physical sub-division of the Subject Property was not permissible by law when there was no sub-division of the “1 undivided share”. The Respondent relied on the authorities:-Lai Wing Ho v. Chan Siu Fong [1993] 1 HKLR 319, Wingo International Ltd v. Ma Wai Man, HCMP 2809 of 2000 (unreported, 29 September 2000), Jumbo King Ltd. v. Faithful Properties Ltd [1999] 2 HKCFAR 279 and Modern Sino Ltd. v. Art Fair Co. Ltd. [1999] 3 HKLRD 847 and submitted that when a person is selling a property in which his interest as a co-owner with other tenants-in-common, he cannot assign a right to the exclusive possession or use or any part of that property without assigning some undivided shares in the property. The Respondent therefore suggested that as there was no “sub-division” of the “1 undivided share” of the Applicant as at the date of resumption, the Subject Property was not capable to be sold in 3 shops. Therefore, it was wrong to allow the valuation to be undertaken on the basis of 3 shops. Miss Wu, however, accepted that the benefit or potential of being sub-divided into smaller units could be taken into account in the valuation and this should be reflected in the adjustment factors, like flexibility in design, frontage, size and layout.

10.  First of all, I do not follow the logic of the Respondent’s submissions that if the “1 undivided share” was not sub-divided, the Subject Property could not be sold in 3 smaller shops and therefore it was wrong to carry out the valuation on this basis. In my view, it does not make any sense. Secondly, there is no dispute that the sub-division of the “1 undivided share” was notional only. Usually this notional sub-division of the undivided share could be carried out by executing a legal instrument called “Deed Poll” before the conveyance is completed or simply, such notional sub-division of undivided share could be carried out in the assignments. The Respondent also agreed that, legally, the Subject Property was permitted to be sub-divided into 3 smaller shops, namely there was no prohibition of sub-division in the Deed of Mutual Covenant or in the previous assignments concerning the Subject Property. The Respondent, however, seemed to suggest that unless and until this notional sub-division was done, the valuation could not be undertaken on this “3 shops” basis even the shop had been physically sub-divided into 3 smaller units already. I do not agree. Thirdly, I do not see why I could not take the physical condition of the Subject Property, as at the date of resumption, into consideration when, on true construction of Section 11 of the Ordinance, the statute expressly allows me to do so.

11.  The Respondent also submitted that the Subject Property was not readily available, as at the date of resumption, to be sold in a sub-divided manner because the “1 undivided share” of the Subject Property had not been notionally sub-divided yet. In my judgment, the Respondent’s argument was misconceived. Whether or not the “1 undivided share” of the Subject Property was sub-divided as at the date of resumption was neither here nor there. The proper test should be whether or not the “1 undivided share” was “sub-divisible” but not “sub-divided”. The Respondent accepted that the valuation should be carried out for the Subject Property on its highest and best use and it was common ground that the value of the Subject Property was higher when it was sub-divided. Parties also agreed that there was no legal impediment that the sub-division could not be carried out, namely it was legally “sub-divisible”. I therefore do not see any reason why the valuation should not be carried out on a “3 shops” basis. In my judgment, whether or not the “1 undivided share” was actually divided notionally as at the date of resumption was irrelevant to the basis of valuation.

12.  Further, the Respondent submitted that this benefit or potential of sub-division in fact should be reflected in the adjustment factors, like flexibility in design, frontage, size and layout. I have to say that this would be a rather unreliable way to carry out the valuation. It is well known amongst professional valuation surveyors that in comparing properties for the purpose of valuation, making adjustments in this way is rather subjective and non-scientific. It is always the best practice in valuation to compare properties with the minimum adjustments. If the benefit or potential of sub-division could be simply reflected in the valuation by just comparing smaller size comparables to the Subject Property on a “3 shops” basis, no adjustment would then need to be made. I therefore do not see how the valuation on the single unit approach as advocated by the Respondent could ever be right for the present case. I find that the stance on this issue of the resumption authority was somewhat puzzling, in particular when Mr. Lai, the valuation expert appointed by the Respondent, while he was giving evidence in the witness box, advised me that from a professional valuation surveyor’s point of view, there was nothing wrong with the “3 shops” basis.

13.  I therefore find that, for determination of compensation purpose, it was proper to carry out the valuation on the “3 shops” basis. By reasons of my findings above, it would no longer be necessary for to me to deal with any matter arising from the single unit approach and I will therefore focus on the evidence relevant to the “3 shops” basis only.

The Experts Evidence

14.  Pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the 2 experts filed and served on the other party 2 reports each before the hearing. Miss Sat and Mr. Lai however came to different opinions on the open market value of the Subject Property (on the “3 Shops” basis), namely:-

	Miss Sat’s View	Mr. Lai’s View
Open Market Value	$8,440,055.53	$5,500,617.39

15.  Upon this Tribunal’s request, Miss Sat and Mr. Lai took part in an experts meeting on 6 December 2010 and jointly submitted a signed Joint Statement dated 8 December 2010 which helpfully set out their agreement on some of the assumptions adopted and steps taken in the valuation. Further, the experts also helpfully filed their respective lists of issues, in the form of a schedule, indicating their differences of opinion and the reasons for their differences.

Particulars of the Subject Property

16.  It was agreed by the experts that on the “3 shops” basis, the 3 sub-divided shops of the Subject Property are to be called Shop A, Shop B and Shop C and their Effective Areas are 11.14 sq.m., 13.28 sq.m. and 15.07 sq.m. respectively. Both parties agreed that I should determine the open market value of Shop B first and such result will be applied to Shop A and Shop C respectively. According to the actual physical sub-division of the Subject Property as at the date of resumption, Shop A was a corner shop with a returned frontage of clear widths of 1.78 m. on Ivy Street and 3.61 m. on Pine Street. For Shop B and Shop C, they were shops with single frontages and the clear widths were 1.91 m and 3.95 m. respectively. The measurement of headroom of the Subject Property was agreed at 4.27 m. Parties had no dispute that the highest and best use of the Subject Property was for retail purposes.

The Valuation

17.  Although the Subject Property was subject to existing tenancies as at the date of resumption, the experts agreed that the period for obtaining vacant possession was short and the effect of which on valuation was negligible. It was therefore agreed that the valuation could be carried out on vacant possession basis and this was in fact how it was carried out by both experts. The date of resumption was agreed by the experts as the date of valuation, namely 2 February 2008. It was also agreed by the experts that the appropriate method of valuation was Direct Comparison Method and 5 suitable comparables were jointly identified for comparison, namely :-

	Address	Date of Transaction	Consideration	Agreed Effective Area (sq.m.)	Parties’ Description
C-1	Shop 12, G/F, Lever Building, No.33 Larch Street, Kowloon	2.8.2007	$1,815,000	7.67	“AC1 or sAA1”
C-2	Shop 8, G/F, Shiu Fung Mansion, No.33 Bedford Road, Kowloon	18.10.2007	$3,100,000	20.22	“AC2 or sAA2”
C-3	Shop 19, G/F, Lever Building, No.33 Larch Street, Kowloon	18.12.2007	$1,400,000	5.74	AC3 or sAA3”
C-4	Shop 9, G/F, Lever Building, No.33 Larch Street, Kowloon	17.1.2008	$2,180,000	7.67	“AC4 or sAA4”
C-5	Shop D, G/F,Bedford House, No.5 Bedford Road, Kowloon	8.5.2008	$2,650,000	10.22	“AC5 or sAA5”

The Appropriate Adjustments

18.  The experts agreed that, for comparing the 5 agreed comparables with the 3 sub-divided shops of the Subject Property, appropriate adjustments had to be made. They agreed that “Time”, “Location”, “Frontage”, “Quantum/ Size” and “Headroom” were appropriate adjustments. Regarding quantum of these adjustments, the experts agreed on “Time”, “Frontage” and “Headroom” but not on  “Location” and “Quantum/ Size”. The experts also agreed that no adjustment should be made for the fact that whether or not the Subject Property or any comparables was a corner shop. For “Visibility” of a shop, it seemed that parties did not disagree that, generally, it was relevant to shop values. But the Respondent submitted that the nature of trade or business of the properties involved did not depend on “impulsive shoppers” and therefore visibility of shops in the present case was not important.  I shall deal with them one by one.

Time Adjustment for Shop B Valuation

19.  The Time adjustments were agreed by experts. They were of the view that it should be based on the Private Retail Price Indices of the Rating and Valuation Department. I accept the experts’ common view and determine the quantum of the adjustment, as per the parties’ agreement, that:-

Comparables	Tribunal’s Determination for Time Adjustment
C-1	+ 12 %
C-2	+ 8 %
C-3	+ 4 %
C-4	+ 2 %
C-5	+ 3 %

Location Adjustment for Shop B Valuation

20.  On location adjustments, the experts’ views were:-

Comparables	Miss Sat’s View	Mr Lai’s View
C-1	- 10 %	- 35 %
C-2	+ 25 %	- 30 %
C-3	- 10 %	- 35 %
C-4	- 10 %	- 35 %
C-5	0 %	- 25 %

21.  I always think that this is a difficult area for Direct Comparison Method of valuation for shops. Since location is always the most important element for values of shops and there is no scientific way to measure the “quality of location”, in making the determination, this Tribunal always has to rely, very much, on the professional view of the expert witnesses, and usually are professional surveyors. However I always find that, surveyors in giving their views on adjustment of location, always take the disadvantage (or advantage) that the “quality of location” could not be scientifically measured and therefore adopt a rather partisan approach, namely the experts will always tell the best or the worst of the location of the property depending on from which side he or she received instructions without giving a fair and impartial view. Although I accept that it is not uncommon, in valuation dispute, surveyors would have different opinions on adjustment of location, surveyors, who are professionally trained people, should know these problems and, in assisting the Tribunal to determine the matter, should approach the dispute in a fair and impartial manner.

22.  The experts are reminded that they have undertaken to comply with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses which stated, inter alia, that:-

“2. An expert witness has an overriding duty to help the Court impartially and independently on matters relevant to the expert’s area of expertise.

3. An expert witness’s paramount duty is to the Court and not to the person from whom the expert received instructions or by whom he is paid.

4. An expert witness is not an advocate for a party”,

and this Tribunal expects them to do so accordingly without any qualification. If whoever pay or instruct the experts do not understand the duties of the experts, the legal representatives and the experts have the duty to explain to them.

23.  In order to assist this Tribunal in resolving the dispute, the surveyors appointed by opposing parties, in anticipating this difficult area of valuation on adjustment of location, should endeavour to narrow down their views. However, for the present case, I do not think that it was sufficiently done for this issue on location adjustment. For example, the parties have an argument about whether or not the Subject Property was located in an area for popular late night dinning. If this was the suggestion and was material to the valuation, I would expect the surveyors, who knew their differences in their opinions, to arrange for a joint site inspection at an agreed time and make some joint site observation for the Tribunal’s consideration. None of that was done. Instead of referring to some common observation in a joint site inspection by the experts, the experts were trying to persuade this Tribunal to accept their own observation on the location of the Subject Property, which was made at very different times of the day, under very different circumstances and without due consideration of the opposing expert’s view on the matter. I have to say that this was most unhelpful to my determination for location adjustment.

24.  Further, in justifying their professional opinions on location adjustment, the surveyors tried to give their views on the pedestrian flow outside the Subject Property. Their views on pedestrian flow were based on their general observation on where some hypothetical persons would prefer to walk from some particular locations to another. In my judgment, this was again not very helpful at all. I do not see why a specialised tribunal, like the Lands Tribunal, would need to know some surveyors’ general personal observation on pedestrians’ behaviour when, in fact, no professional knowledge was required to give such opinion. I also find that it was very unhelpful for the experts to persuade this Tribunal to accept their own views on the quantity of pedestrian flow at different locations around the Subject Property when no actual survey or measurement was taken.

25.  I am sure that different streets within the area would have different quantities of pedestrian flow but since they are so close from one to another, it would be pointless to argue what would be a preferred route of a reasonable pedestrian. In my judgment, different persons would have different ideas and different persons would have different preferences. This kind of “preferred route” analysis was not of any assistance to the Tribunal at all. The difference in pedestrian flow would be so little and should not have much impact on the values of the properties involved. But, if the difference in quantity of pedestrian flow would be of any significance to the value of the properties, the surveyor should take the matter more seriously and should carry out some actual survey or measurement for the Tribunal’s consideration instead of just advising the Tribunal some general observation. I find that these personal general observations on so-called “pattern of pedestrian flow” are not of much assistance to my determination. I therefore put very little weight on the experts’ evidence for location adjustments.

26.  Given the unsatisfactory state of the experts’ evidence, for determination of the location adjustment, I have to rely more on the undisputed circumstantial evidence than the experts’ views, including, the location plans, the photographs of the Subject Properties and the comparables and the observation I took during the site inspection arranged by the parties at the beginning of the hearing. However, for the site inspection, I remind myself that the Subject Property no longer existed on that day and it had become part of a construction site. For making my determination, I should therefore make some allowance for the differences in circumstances between the actual date of resumption and the date of inspection.

27.  In my judgment, looking at the location plan and the photographs and given my impression during the site inspection, all comparables were located very close to each other. C-1, C-3 and C-4 were in fact located within the same building, namely the Lever Building on Larch Street. For C-2, it was located at Bedford Road and whereas for C-5, despite its address at Bedford Road, its shop front was facing Fir Street. All the comparables were within the same locality. They should all have the same location adjustment when compared with the Subject Property. I do not accept the views of the experts that they should all have very different quantum of adjustments.

28.  I am also of the view that since these comparables located so close to the Subject Property, I do not see any justification for any adjustment of more than 20 %.

29.  Comparing the location where all the comparables were situated with respect to the location of the Subject Property, I find that, in general, the location of the comparables was more superior. This seems to be in line with the general impression of the experts. Although I accept that there were many restaurants along Pine Street and it was probably a popular late night dinning area, the Subject Property was only located on the fringe of this area and the benefit from it was marginal. On the other hand, I accept that the area of Larch Street, Bedford Street and Fir Street, where the comparables were situated, was a comparatively busier retail area, with retailers mainly in the businesses of metalwork and other engineering services, than the area of the Subject Property. I therefore find that an adjustment of – 20% for all the comparables should be sufficient to account for the difference in location.

Frontage Adjustment for Shop B Valuation

30.  Parties in fact agreed that the clear widths of the frontages should be used for comparison and the experts agreed that the adjustment should be every 4% upwards adjustment for every of 1 m. increase in width. I therefore determine the adjustment for Shop B according to the parties agreement, namely:-

Comparables	Measurement of Width of the Frontage	Tribunal’s Determination for Frontage Adjustment
C-1	2.73 m. on Larch Street & 1.87 m. on arcade	- 11 %
C-2	3.36 m.	- 6 %
C-3	1.90 m. on Larch Street & 2.18 m. on arcade	- 9 %
C-4	2.73 m. on Larch Street & 1.87 m. on arcade	- 11 %
C-5	2.9 m.	- 4 %

Quantum / Size Adjustment for Shop B Valuation

31.  The Effective Areas of all 5 comparables were agreed but the experts had different views on the adjustment. Miss Sat was of the view that the adjustment should be every 1% downwards adjustment for every 10% of Effective Area increase, namely 1.4 sq.m.. Mr. Lai however said that it should be every 1% downwards adjustment for every 1 sq.m. increase in Effective Area. The Applicant submitted that Miss Sat’s view was based on the principle decided inChung Pui Hing v. Director of Lands LDLR 2 of 2008, 4 September 2009, unreported. Be that it was argued during the hearing of that case, I am, however, unable to see from the authority that the learned Member made any ruling on it. It seems that the learned Member only accepted the formula of every 1% downwards adjustment for very 1 sq.m. increase of Effective Area without any reference to the suggested principle. I am afraid that I fail to understand the reasons suggested by the Applicant. Since the formula of every 1% downwards adjustment for very 1 sq.m. increase of Effective Area has been accepted by this Tribunal for valuation of similar size properties before and there was no evidence adduced to suggest that it was unreasonable, I therefore accept Mr. Lai’s view on adjustment of quantum / size in full. My determination for the Quantum / Size Adjustments is:-

Comparables	Effective Areas	Tribunal’s Determination for Quantum / Size Adjustment
C-1	7.67 sq.m.	- 6 %
C-2	20.22 sq.m.	+ 7 %
C-3	5.74 sq.m.	- 8 %
C-4	7.67 sq.m.	- 6 %
C-5	10.22 sq.m.	- 3 %

Headroom Adjustment for Shop B Valuation

32.  Miss Sat and Mr. Lai agreed the adjustment for headroom. I find their agreement being reasonable and accept it in full. The experts’ agreement is:-

Comparables	Tribunal’s Determination for Headroom Adjustment
C-1	0 %
C-2	- 1 %
C-3	0 %
C-4	0 %
C-5	- 1 %

Visibility Adjustment

33.  Although I agree with Miss Sat that this was a relevant consideration for shop valuation, given my observation during the site inspection that the retailers, occupying the comparables and other shops in the same locality, were mainly businesses of metalwork or engineering services and not of those premium high street type retail shops, I agree with the Respondent’s submissions that visibility had very little, if not nil, effect on value of these shops and therefore I accept that nil adjustment should be made.

The Tribunal’s Findings for Shop B

34.  By reason of the above, I find that the adjusted unit rate for each comparable and the average adjusted unit rate for Shop B, respectively, are:-

	Unit Rate ($ psm)	Time	Location	Frontage	Quantum / Size	Headroom	Visibility	Total Adjustment	Adjusted Unit Rate ($ psm)
C-1	236,636	+12 %	- 20 %	- 11 %	- 6 %	0 %	0 %	- 25 %	177,477
C-2	153,314	+ 8 %	- 20 %	- 6 %	+ 7 %	- 1 %	0 %	- 12 %	134,916
C-3	243,902	+ 4 %	- 20 %	- 9 %	- 8 %	0 %	0 %	- 33 %	96,414
C-4	284,224	+ 2 %	- 20 %	- 11 %	- 6 %	0 %	0 %	- 35 %	184,746
C-5	259,295	-3 %	- 20 %	- 4 %	- 3 %	-1 %	0 %	- 31 %	178,914
	Shop B							Average	154,493

Adjustments for Shop A and Shop C

35.  The adjustments of Time, Location and Headroom applicable to the valuation of Shop B are the same for Shops A and C. The formulae of adjustments for Frontage and Quantum / Size applied to the valuation of Shop B will be applied to the valuation of Shops A and C, namely for Shop A:-

Comparables	Measurement of Width of the Frontage	Tribunal’s Determination for Frontage Adjustment
C-1	2.73 m. on Larch Street & 1.87 m. on arcade	+ 3 %
C-2	3.36 m.	+ 8 %
C-3	1.90 m. on Larch Street & 2.18 m. on arcade	+ 5 %
C-4	2.73 m. on Larch Street & 1.87 m. on arcade	+ 3 %
C-5	2.9 m.	+ 10 %

Comparables	Effective Areas	Tribunal’s Determination for Quantum / Size Adjustment
C-1	7.67 sq.m.	- 3 %
C-2	20.22 sq.m.	+ 9 %
C-3	5.74 sq.m.	- 5 %
C-4	7.67 sq.m.	- 3 %
C-5	10.22 sq.m.	- 1 %

and for Shop C:-

Comparables	Measurement of Width of the Frontage	Tribunal’s Determination for Frontage Adjustment
C-1	2.73 m. on Larch Street & 1.87 m. on arcade	- 3 %
C-2	3.36 m.	+ 2 %
C-3	1.90 m. on Larch Street & 2.18 m. on arcade	- 1 %
C-4	2.73 m. on Larch Street & 1.87 m. on arcade	- 3 %
C-5	2.9 m.	+ 4 %

Comparables	Effective Areas	Tribunal’s Determination for Quantum / Size Adjustment
C-1	7.67 sq.m.	- 7 %
C-2	20.22 sq.m.	+ 5 %
C-3	5.74 sq.m.	- 9 %
C-4	7.67 sq.m.	- 7 %
C-5	10.22 sq.m.	- 5 %

The Tribunal’s Findings for Shop A and Shop C

36.  Similarly, using the same comparables for Shop B, I find that the adjusted unit rate for each comparable and the average adjusted unit rate for Shop A, respectively, are:-

	Unit Rate ($ psm)	Time	Location	Frontage	Quantum / Size	Headroom	Visibility	Total Adjustment	Adjusted Unit Rate ($ psm)
C-1	236,636	+12 %	- 20 %	+ 3 %	- 3 %	0 %	0 %	- 8 %	217,705
C-2	153,314	+ 8 %	- 20 %	+ 8 %	+ 9 %	- 1 %	0 %	+ 4 %	159,447
C-3	243,902	+ 4 %	- 20 %	+ 5 %	- 5 %	0 %	0 %	- 16 %	120,878
C-4	284,224	+ 2 %	- 20 %	+ 3 %	- 3 %	0 %	0 %	- 18 %	233,064
C-5	259,295	-3 %	- 20 %	+ 10 %	- 1 %	-1 %	0 %	- 15 %	220,401
	Shop A							Average	190,299

and for Shop C, respectively are:-

	Unit Rate ($ psm)	Time	Location	Frontage	Quantum / Size	Headroom	Visibility	Total Adjustment	Adjusted Unit Rate ($ psm)
C-1	236,636	+12 %	- 20 %	- 3 %	- 7 %	0 %	0 %	- 18 %	194,042
C-2	153,314	+ 8 %	- 20 %	+ 2 %	+ 5 %	- 1 %	0 %	- 6 %	144,115
C-3	243,902	+ 4 %	- 20 %	- 1 %	- 9 %	0 %	0 %	- 26 %	106,487
C-4	284,224	+ 2 %	- 20 %	- 3 %	- 7 %	0 %	0 %	- 28 %	204,641
C-5	259,295	-3 %	- 10 %	+ 4 %	- 5 %	-1 %	0 %	- 25 %	194,471
	Shop C							Average	168,751

The Valuation for the Subject Property

37.  I therefore find that the unit rates for the open market values of Shop A, Shop B and Shop C of the Subject Property, on vacant possession basis, as at the date of resumption, are $190,299 per sq.m., $154,493 per sq.m. and $168,751 per sq.m. respectively and therefore determine that the open market value of the Subject Property, as at the date of resumption, is:-  

Shop A
11.14 sq.m. x   $190,299 per sq.m.		$2,119,931
Shop B
13.28 sq.m. x $154,493 per sq.m.		$ 2,051,667
Shop C
15.07 sq.m. x  $168,751 per sq.m.		$2,543,078
	----------------------
Total for the Subject Property		$6,714,676
	Say	$6,715,000

Orders

38.  Accordingly, I order that the Respondent do pay the Applicant compensation for the Subject Property in the sum of $6,715,000.  The matters of professional fees, interest and costs shall be adjourned to a date to be fixed, with liberty to apply for any other ancillary and consequential matters.

39.  For costs, I would like to add that, having considered the amount claimed and awarded and the complexity of this Application, in the absence of any agreement, it should be taxed on High Court Scale with certificate for Counsel.

40.  It remains for me to thank Counsel for their invaluable assistance.