LUCKTIME LTD v. SHIU MEN HING and SIU CLARE, the Administratrices of the Estate of LEE SIK HEUNG, Deceased AND OTHERS

LDCS 1000/2018

[2020] HKLdT 46

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

LAND COMPULSORY SALE MAIN APPLICATION NO 1000 OF 2018

__________________________

__________________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

BACKGROUND

1.  This is the applicant’s 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 4 lots of land together with 4 buildings erected thereon.

2.  The 4 lots of land (collectively referred to as “the Lots”) which are the subject of the present application are:

1)  Subsection 11 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“Lot 1”);

2)  Section A of subsection 13 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“Lot 2”);

3)  Section B of subsection 13 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“Lot 3”); and

4)  Section C of subsection 13 of section A of Hung Hom Marine Lot No 1 (“Lot 4”).  

3.  The 4 buildings erected on the Lots (collectively referred to as “the Buildings”) are:

1)  Nos 2, 2A, 2B and 4 Whampoa Street (“Building 1”);

2)  Nos 6, 6A, 8 and 8A Whampoa Street (“Building 2”);

3)  Nos 10, 10A, 12 and 12A Whampoa Street (“Building 3”); and

4)  Nos 14, 14A, 16 and 16A Whampoa Street (“Building 4”).

4.  Though the Buildings are adjoining, they are not interconnected. A brief description of each Building is set out below.

5.  Building 1 is a 7-storey Chinese tenement block served by 2 common staircases. Occupation permits Nos 12K and 16K issued for Building 1, both dated 25 January 1957, granted permission to occupy portion of the ground floor (“G/F”) as shops for non‑domestic purposes, and portion of the G/F and upper floors as apartments for domestic purposes.  According to the building plans and alterations and additions plans of Building 1 filed by the applicant, there are 3 non-domestic units and 1 domestic unit planned on G/F and 4 domestic units planned on each of 1^st Floor (“1/F”) to 6^th Floor (“6/F”).

6.  Lot 1 together with Building 1 standing thereon is allocated with 28 undivided shares. Each of the 4 non-domestic / domestic units on G/F and the 24 domestic units on upper floors of Building 1 is allotted 1 undivided share, making up a total of 28 undivided shares.

7.  Buildings 2, 3 and 4 are each an 8-storey Chinese tenement block served by 2 common staircases. An occupation permit No K15, dated 13 March 1957, was issued for these 3 buildings, granting permission to occupy the G/F for non-domestic purpose and upper floors for domestic purpose.  According to the building plans of Buildings 2, 3 and 4 filed by the applicant, there are 4 non-domestic units planned on G/F and 4 domestic units planned on each of 1/F to 7^th Floor (“7/F”) of each building. 

8.  Lot 2 together with Building 2 standing thereon is allocated 32 undivided shares. Each of the 4 non-domestic units on G/F and the 28 domestic units on upper floors of Building 2 is allotted 1 undivided share, making up a total of 32 undivided shares. Lot 3 together with Building 3 standing thereon and Lot 4 together with Building 4 standing thereon have the same allocation of undivided shares as that of Lot 2 together with Building 2 standing thereon.

9.  1 non-domestic unit in Building 2 and 1 domestic unit in Building 4 have been further sub-divided as follows:

1)  In respect of Building 2:

The G/F of No 10 Whampoa Street is sub-divided into 2 sub-divided units [i.e. Unit 10B (6/10 share) and Unit 10C (4/10 share)].

2)  In respect of Building 4:

The 6/F of No 14 Whampoa Street is sub-divided into 2 sub-divided units [i.e. Unit 14(1) (1/2 share) and Unit 14(2) (1/2 share)].

SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE – OWNERSHIP OF THE APPLICANTS

10.  At the time of filing of the Notice of Application (“NOA”) on 2 January 2018, the applicant owned more than the threshold of 90% undivided shares in each of the Lots and the Lots. The applicant’s ownership in the respective lots is set out as follows:

1)  92.86% (i.e. 26 out of the total 28 undivided shares) in Lot 1;

2)  92.19% (i.e. 29.5 out of the total 32 undivided shares) in Lot 2;

3)  96.88% (i.e. 31 out of the total 32 undivided shares) in Lot 3; and

4)  93.75% (i.e. 30 out of the total 32 undivided shares) in Lot 4.  

11.  Since the filing of the NOA, the applicant acquired further undivided shares from 5 respondents (i.e. 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th 5^th and 7^th respondents), and subsequently discontinued the proceedings against them.  The applicant then amended and re-amended the NOA on 29 April 2019 and 24 June 2020 respectively pursuant to the Orders of the tribunal.

12.  As at the date of trial, the applicant’s ownership in the Lots increased to:

1)  94.63% (i.e. 27 out of the total 28 undivided shares) in Lot 1;

2)  98.44% (i.e. 31.5 out of the total 32 undivided shares) in Lot 2;

3)  100% (i.e. total 32 undivided shares) in Lot 3; and

4)  96.88% (i.e. 31 out of the total 32 undivided shares) in Lot 4. 

13.  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)(a) of the Ordinance states that an application may cover 2 or more lots where the majority owner owns not less than the percentage in subsection (1) of the undivided shares in each lot.

14.  I am satisfied that as at the date of application the applicant owned more than 90% of the undivided shares in the Lots and each of the Lots.  I am therefore satisfied the applicant is entitled to make the present application under section 3 of the Ordinance.

THE REMAINING RESPONDENTS

15.  As at the day of trial, the following 3 respondents remain in the present action (collectively referred to as “the Remaining Respondents”): -

Respondent		Premises
1st Respondent	(“R1”)	2/F of No 2B Whampoa Street (Building 1 on Lot 1)
6th Respondent	(“R6”)	3/F of No 16 Whampoa Street (Building 4 on Lot 4)
8th Respondent	(“R8”)	1/2 share of 3/F of No 6A Whampoa Street (Building 2 on Lot 2)

16.  Before the trial, R1 agreed to sell and the applicant agreed to purchase the R1’s property. They have then applied by a joint letter on 25 September 2020 for leave to withdraw the R1’s Notice of Opposition, witness statements and submissions, and the attendance of R1 at trial be dispensed with, which were granted by the tribunal on the same date.

17.  R6 and R8 are missing owner and were absent throughout the proceedings. Substituted service of the application on them was effected respectively on 29 August 2018 and 25 September 2019 pursuant to the Orders of the tribunal dated 15 August 2018 and 13 September 2019.  None of them has shown up after the expiration of the 1-month period as specified respectively in the notices.

18.  In addition, the applicant has already purchased the possessory title to the 1/2 share of 3/F of No 6A Whampoa Street, and as at the date of trial R8 is a paper title owner only of the 1/2 share of 3/F of No 6A Whampoa Street.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

19.  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 the respective buildings, as at 27 November 2017, the valuation date adopted in the application valuation report dated 11 December 2017, 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 applicant has taken reasonable steps to acquire all the undivided shares in the Lots or the respective lots on terms that are fair and reasonable in accordance with section 4(2)(b) of the Ordinance?

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)?

20.  Since the application comprises of 4 buildings and the applicant asked for orders of a combined sale of the Lots in one auction, the reserve price to be set at the RDV of the Lots as a merged site, and the respective EUV of all 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 applicant’s suggestions are acceptable.

DETERMINATION OF THE EUV OF ALL UNITS IN THE BUILDINGS

21.  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.”

22.  The applicant relies on the reports and valuations of Mr Wong Chi Wai (“Mr CW Wong”) of Grandmax Surveyors Limited. In the application valuation report dated 11 December 2017, Mr CW Wong 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 27 November 2017. He had also prepared a supplemental valuation report dated 13 February 2020, in which he reviewed the EUV of all units in the Buildings.  In the supplemental valuation report, he valued the reference shop unit (i.e. G/F of No 8 Whampoa Street) at $461,000 per square meters and the reference domestic unit (i.e. 4/F of No 10 Whampoa Street) at $80,000 per square meters.  He then compared the reference units with the other units in the Buildings and assessed the EUV of all units in the Buildings at $717,242,000.

23.  Since G/F of No 2B Whampoa Street has been used as a shop, Mr CW Wong valued it as a non-domestic unit despite its designated use for domestic purpose in the relevant occupation permit and approved building plans.

24.  I accept the EUV of all units in the Buildings assessed by Mr CW Wong in the supplemental valuation report and am satisfied that the value of the units owned by the respondents are not less than fair and reasonable and not less than fair and reasonable when compared with the value of the applicant’s properties. The EUV of all units in each of the buildings and the Buildings as at the relevant date of valuation, i.e. 27 November 2017, are appended below: -

Building 1

Address	Floor	Unit	EUV
2 Whampoa Street	G	-	$27,891,000
2A Whampoa Street	G	-	$26,759,000
2B Whampoa Street	G	-	$27,402,000
4 Whampoa Street	G	-	$38,256,000
2 Whampoa Street	1	-	$6,413,000
2A Whampoa Street	1	-	$5,366,000
2B Whampoa Street	1	-	$4,679,000
4 Whampoa Street	1	-	$5,348,000
2 Whampoa Street	2	-	$6,290,000
2A Whampoa Street	2	-	$5,269,000
2B Whampoa Street	2	-	$5,102,000
4 Whampoa Street	2	-	$5,246,000
2 Whampoa Street	3	-	$6,172,000
2A Whampoa Street	3	-	$5,167,000
2B Whampoa Street	3	-	$4,750,000
4 Whampoa Street	3	-	$5,144,000
2 Whampoa Street	4	-	$6,049,000
2A Whampoa Street	4	-	$4,813,000
2B Whampoa Street	4	-	$4,906,000
4 Whampoa Street	4	-	$5,043,000
2 Whampoa Street	5	-	$5,663,000
2A Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,964,000
2B Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,564,000
4 Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,788,000
2 Whampoa Street	6	-	$4,756,000
2A Whampoa Street	6	-	$4,862,000
2B Whampoa Street	6	-	$4,470,000
4 Whampoa Street	6	-	$4,294,000
Sub-total			$244,426,000

Building 2

Address	Floor	Unit	EUV
6 Whampoa Street	G	-	$20,001,000
6A Whampoa Street	G	-	$5,931,000
8 Whampoa Street	G	-	$19,049,000
8A Whampoa Street	G	-	$5,931,000
6 Whampoa Street	1	-	$4,220,000
6A Whampoa Street	1	-	$3,838,000
8 Whampoa Street	1	-	$4,454,000
8A Whampoa Street	1	-	$3,838,000
6 Whampoa Street	2	-	$4,600,000
6A Whampoa Street	2	-	$3,387,000
8 Whampoa Street	2	-	$4,370,000
8A Whampoa Street	2	-	$3,387,000
6 Whampoa Street	3	-	$4,512,000
6A Whampoa Street	3	-	$3,692,000
8 Whampoa Street	3	-	$4,512,000
8A Whampoa Street	3	-	$3,322,000
6 Whampoa Street	4	-	$4,423,000
6A Whampoa Street	4	-	$3,620,000
8 Whampoa Street	4	-	$3,981,000
8A Whampoa Street	4	-	$3,258,000
6 Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,118,000
6A Whampoa Street	5	-	$3,193,000
8 Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,118,000
8A Whampoa Street	5	-	$3,369,000
6 Whampoa Street	6	-	$4,191,000
6A Whampoa Street	6	-	$3,301,000
8 Whampoa Street	6	-	$4,191,000
8A Whampoa Street	6	-	$3,129,000
6 Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,323,000
6A Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,168,000
8 Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,323,000
8A Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,168,000
Sub-total			$156,918,000

Building 3

Address	Floor	Unit	EUV
10 Whampoa Street	G	B	$11,313,000
10 Whampoa Street	G	C	$7,962,000
10A Whampoa Street	G	-	$5,931,000
12 Whampoa Street	G	-	$19,049,000
12A Whampoa Street	G	-	$5,931,000
10 Whampoa Street	1	-	$4,454,000
10A Whampoa Street	1	-	$3,455,000
12 Whampoa Street	1	-	$4,689,000
12A Whampoa Street	1	-	$3,838,000
10 Whampoa Street	2	-	$4,600,000
10A Whampoa Street	2	-	$3,387,000
12 Whampoa Street	2	-	$4,600,000
12A Whampoa Street	2	-	$3,577,000
10 Whampoa Street	3	-	$4,512,000
10A Whampoa Street	3	-	$3,692,000
12 Whampoa Street	3	-	$4,512,000
12A Whampoa Street	3	-	$3,692,000
10 Whampoa Street	4	-	$4,423,000
10A Whampoa Street	4	-	$3,620,000
12 Whampoa Street	4	-	$3,981,000
12A Whampoa Street	4	-	$3,620,000
10 Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,118,000
10A Whampoa Street	5	-	$3,548,000
12 Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,335,000
12A Whampoa Street	5	-	$3,193,000
10 Whampoa Street	6	-	$4,191,000
10A Whampoa Street	6	-	$3,476,000
12 Whampoa Street	6	-	$3,981,000
12A Whampoa Street	6	-	$3,476,000
10 Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,694,000
10A Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,333,000
12 Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,694,000
12A Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,168,000
Sub-total			$159,045,000

Building 4

Address	Floor	Unit	EUV
14 Whampoa Street	G	-	$19,049,000
14A Whampoa Street	G	-	$5,931,000
16 Whampoa Street	G	-	$19,049,000
16A Whampoa Street	G	-	$5,931,000
14 Whampoa Street	1	-	$4,454,000
14A Whampoa Street	1	-	$3,645,000
16 Whampoa Street	1	-	$4,689,000
16A Whampoa Street	1	-	$3,455,000
14 Whampoa Street	2	-	$4,600,000
14A Whampoa Street	2	-	$3,763,000
16 Whampoa Street	2	-	$4,370,000
16A Whampoa Street	2	-	$3,387,000
14 Whampoa Street	3	-	$4,286,000
14A Whampoa Street	3	-	$3,692,000
16 Whampoa Street	3	-	$4,512,000
16A Whampoa Street	3	-	$3,509,000
14 Whampoa Street	4	-	$4,423,000
14A Whampoa Street	4	-	$3,437,000
16 Whampoa Street	4	-	$4,202,000
16A Whampoa Street	4	-	$3,437,000
14 Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,118,000
14A Whampoa Street	5	-	$3,193,000
16 Whampoa Street	5	-	$4,118,000
16A Whampoa Street	5	-	$3,548,000
14 Whampoa Street	6	14(1)	$2,160,000
14 Whampoa Street	6	14(2)	$1,956,000
14A Whampoa Street	6	-	$3,129,000
16 Whampoa Street	6	-	$3,981,000
16A Whampoa Street	6	-	$3,476,000
14 Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,323,000
14A Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,168,000
16 Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,694,000
16A Whampoa Street	7	-	$3,168,000
Sub-total			$156,853,000

25.  I accept the total EUV of the Buildings is $717,242,000. 

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

26.  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).”

27.  The applicant 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 Buildings

28.  Mr Wong Chi Ming (“Mr CM Wong”) of CM Wong & Associates Limited for the applicant, both a structural engineer and a geotechnical engineer, conducted a structural survey of the Buildings and prepared a Structural Assessment Report dated 10 February 2020.  Mr Wong Wing Cheung Dennis (“Mr Dennis Wong”) of Prudential Surveyors International Limited for the applicant, both a building surveyor and a structural engineer, conducted a condition survey and prepared a Condition Survey Report dated 17 February 2020. 

29.  None of the respondents adduced expert evidence to rebut the reports complied by Mr CM Wong and Mr Dennis Wong.  

30.  Having considered the reports of Mr CM Wong and Mr Dennis Wong, I accept their expert opinion. The Buildings, being erected more than 63 years ago, are in poor condition and have come to the end of their design life.  The design of the Buildings has become obsolete over time in many aspects, both physically and functionally, and fails to conform to modern safety standards and statutory requirements.

31.  I am also of the view the Buildings are in poor state of repair and the costs of repair to bring the Buildings 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 Buildings and the Buildings will continue remain a sub-standard one. 

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

Whether the applicant has taken reasonable steps

33.  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, we 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……”

34.  Before the trial, the applicant and R1 have already come into a settlement agreement.

35.  R6 and R8 are missing owners. Ms Ngai, counsel for the applicant, submits there was no way that offers made by the applicant to R6 on 8 December 2017 and 13 February 2020 could have reached R6, and it is also impossible for the applicant to negotiate with R8.  Further, it also serves no meaning or constructive purpose for the applicant to make any offer to R8 for the purpose of acquiring R8’s paper title to the 1/2 share of 3/F of No 6A Whampoa Street. I agree.

36.  Nevertheless, the applicant’s offers to R6, having considered the marriage value for site assembly and being based on professional valuation, reflect the then RDV attributable to the unit owned by R6. I consider the applicant’s offers do fall within a range of what may broadly be regarded as fair and reasonable.

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

RESERVE PRICE FOR THE AUCTION

38.  By reason of being satisfied that redevelopment of the Lots is justified and that the applicant has 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 applicant.

39.  Mr CW Wong adopted residual method to assess the RDV of the Lots as a merged site instead of 4 independent sites as at 12 February 2020. In the residual valuation, Mr CW Wong opined that the optimum development on the Lots comprised a 23-storey commercial / residential composite building with retail shops on G/F and 1/F, recreational facilities on 2/F, and domestic units from 3/F to 22/F. 

40.  Details of the hypothetical development with the proposed gross floor area of 12,040.28 square meters (excluding half of the areas for green features that are exempted in calculation) and plot ratio of 9, the gross development value assessed (i.e. on average $344,625 per square meter saleable area for shops on G/F, on average $114,875 per square meter saleable area for shops on 1/F and on average $224,000 per square meter saleable area for standard residential units on upper floors), the development costs adopted (i.e. on average $36,077 per square meter gross floor area) and the residual valuation (i.e. development period of 3.25 years, profit at 20% of costs, and interest rate at 5% per annum) were set out in his supplemental report dated 13 February 2020.  He assessed the RDV of the Lots by residual method at $1,316,000,000.

41.  Nonetheless, when Mr CW Wong replied to the questions from the tribunal at trial, he agreed that interest rate at 4% or 5% per annum was reasonable in the subject residual valuation. Since the interest rate as at the valuation date had been dropping, I consider it is reasonable to adopt the interest rate at 4% per annum.

RDV of the Lots as at 12 February 2020

42.  Having gone through Mr CW Wong’s assessment in his supplemental report, I accept his residual valuation except the interest rate.  By applying an interest rate at 4% per annum in the residual valuation, the RDV of the Lots would be assessed at $1,363,000,000, equivalent to an accommodation value of about $113,203 per square meter (i.e. about $10,517 per square foot).

SALE OF THE LOTS AS A COMPOSITE SITE

43.  Ms Ngai submits the Lots be sold together by one public auction.

44.  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.  By looking at the achievable auction price alone, a higher reserve price would generally not prejudice interest of minority owners. Hence, subject to a fair and equitable apportionment of the sale proceeds that will be discussed in the paragraphs below, I agree the RDV as assessed at $1,363,000,000 on a merged site basis should be the reserve price for auction of the Lots.

APPORTIONMENT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS

45.  Even though the reserve price is set on a merged site basis, there are questions on apportionment of sale proceeds.  Ms Ngai submits that the respective EUV of all units in the Buildings as determined by the tribunal be adopted for apportionment of the sale proceeds of the Lots.

46.  I note there is no issue raised on whether the sale proceeds should be apportioned on a merged site basis. I further note the differences in building density of the respective buildings in the Lots (i.e. either 7-storey or 8-storey tenement buildings) appear to be insubstantial, and the benefits from marriage value on a merged site basis could outweigh the drawbacks in this regard, if any on apportionment.

47.  In the circumstances, I am of the view the sale proceeds should be apportioned in accordance with the respective EUV of all units in the Buildings, and such apportionment on a merged site basis would not prejudice the interests 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)  Ms Anna Chow and Mr Anthony Chow, nominated by the applicant, be appointed the trustees (“the Trustees”) to discharge the duties imposed on them as trustees by the Ordinance in relation to the sale of the Lots;

3)  The Trustees be authorized to charge such remuneration for their services in accordance with the terms set out in the letter of Messrs Guantao & Chow dated 17 February 2020;

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 $1,363,000,000;

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 applicant do publish notices once in a Chinese language newspaper (and in the Chinese language) and once in an English newspaper (and in the English language) circulating generally in Hong Kong within 7 days from the date of the sealed judgment informing the 6^th respondent, the 8^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 applicant, the 1^st respondent, the 6^th respondent, the 8^th respondent and the Trustees to apply to the tribunal for further directions.

COSTS

49.  The application is uncontested. The applicant and R1 have also agreed there be no order as to costs in this application.

50.  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.