多地段強拍可否合併估價？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：FIRST KIND LIMITED (創啓有限公司) 及 ALL BRIGHT HONG KONG INVESTMENT LIMITED (恒輝香港投資有限公司) 訴 LIU KENG CHOR, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LI FUNG MAN DECEASED 及 WING LEE HARDWARE & ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (永利五金機電有限公司) - 法院：土地審裁處 (Lands Tribunal) - 法官：黃敬華暫委主席 (His Honour Judge KW WONG, Presiding Officer) - 判決日期：2016年5月6日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及香港旺角廣東道介乎登打士街與豉油街之間六對五層高相連建築物，每對建築物均建於兩幅相連地段上，樓齡均超過60年。多數業主（申請人）就每對建築物向土地審裁處提出六宗獨立的強制售賣申請，旨在將其重建。少數業主（答辯人）則提出申請，要求將所有六宗申請合併處理，並將所有地段作為一個合併地盤出售，以反映其更高的重建潛力，從而獲得更公平合理的補償。多數業主反對合併申請，認為每棟建築物獨立，且各建築物的狀況不同，合併處理不切實際，並指強制售賣條例（LCSRO）不允許合併獨立申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於土地審裁處是否有權力及酌情權，根據《土地（為重新發展而強制售賣）條例》（LCSRO）指示將多宗獨立申請所涉及的相連地段作為一個合併地盤出售，並設定反映合併地盤全面重建潛力的底價。少數業主主張審裁處有此權力及責任，以確保他們獲得公平合理的補償。多數業主則認為審裁處的權力僅限於單一申請所涉地段，且條例不允許合併申請。 ### 判決理由 審裁處分析了《土地（為重新發展而強制售賣）條例》第4(6)(a)(i)條及附表2第2段的條文，特別是關於底價設定的「其本身」或「其等本身」公式。審裁處指出，若將多個地段合併出售，底價將根據「其等本身」公式設定，反映合併地盤的更高重建潛力。審裁處審視了多宗案例，包括終審法院在Capital Well Limited v Bond Star Development Limited案中的意見，該意見暗示條例可能允許合併出售以避免「贖金權力」並促進城市更新。審裁處認為，為實現條例保護少數業主獲得公平合理補償的目標，應允許合併出售並按合併地盤價值設定底價。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例，包括： - Capital Well Limited v Bond Star Development Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 578：終審法院的意見暗示條例可能允許合併出售以避免「贖金權力」並促進城市更新。 - Sin Ho Yuen v Fineway Properties Ltd (2011) 14 HKCFAR 497：支持條例目標是確保少數業主獲得公平合理補償。 - Good Faith Properties Ltd v Cibean Development Co Ltd [2014] 5 HKLRD 534：支持條例目標是確保少數業主獲得公平合理補償。 - Bond Star Development Ltd v Capital Wall Ltd [2004] 2 HKLRD 856：上訴法庭的裁決，限制售賣範圍。 - Day Bright Development Ltd & Ors v Choi Pak Ling & Ors [2014] 4 HKC 364：審裁處的決定，支持按個別地盤估價。 - Supergoal Investment Limited v Five Ming House Limited & Others [2014] 1 HKLRD 286：審裁處的決定，允許合併地段出售並按合併地盤估價。 - Many Gain Investment Limited v Chan Fai Ho & Others (unreported) LDCS28000/2012, 29 November 2013：審裁處的決定，建議所有地段需披露以反映合併地盤價值。 ### 裁決與命令 審裁處裁定，有權力及酌情權指示將多宗獨立申請所涉及的相連地段作為一個合併地盤出售，並設定反映合併地盤全面重建潛力的底價。這將確保少數業主獲得公平合理的補償，並促進城市更新。具體命令將在後續決定中詳細說明，但原則上支持少數業主關於合併出售和底價設定的立場。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了《土地（為重新發展而強制售賣）條例》（LCSRO）在促進城市更新的同時，必須確保少數業主獲得公平合理補償的雙重目標。審裁處明確表示，為實現這些目標，可以指示將多個獨立申請的地段合併出售，並根據合併地盤的重建潛力設定底價。這對未來涉及多個相連地段的強制售賣申請具有重要指導意義，可能會鼓勵多數業主在申請時考慮合併地盤的潛力，以避免爭議並提高效率。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: FIRST KIND LIMITED (創啓有限公司) and ALL BRIGHT HONG KONG INVESTMENT LIMITED (恒輝香港投資有限公司) v LIU KENG CHOR, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LI FUNG MAN DECEASED and WING LEE HARDWARE & ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (永利五金機電有限公司) - Court: Lands Tribunal - Judge: His Honour Judge KW WONG, Presiding Officer - Date of Judgment: 6 May 2016 ### Factual Background This case concerns six pairs of 5-storey contiguous buildings on Canton Road, Mongkok, each on two consecutive lots, all over 60 years old. The majority owners (Applicants) filed six separate compulsory sale applications for redevelopment. The minority owners (Respondents) applied to consolidate all six applications and sell the lots as a merged site to reflect higher redevelopment potential and ensure fair compensation. The majority owners opposed consolidation, arguing that each building was structurally independent, their conditions varied, and the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (LCSRO) did not permit consolidating separate applications. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question is whether the Lands Tribunal has the power and discretion under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (LCSRO) to direct the sale of adjoining lots, subject to different applications, as a merged site, and to set a reserve price reflecting the full redevelopment potential of the merged site. The minority owners contend the Tribunal has this power and duty to ensure fair and reasonable compensation. The majority owners argue the Tribunal's power is limited to lots subject to individual applications, and the Ordinance does not allow consolidation. ### Ratio Decidendi The Tribunal analyzed sections 4(6)(a)(i) and Schedule 2 paragraph 2 of the LCSRO, particularly the 'on its own' or 'on their own' formula for setting reserve prices. It noted that selling multiple lots as a merged site would engage the 'on their own' formula, reflecting higher redevelopment potential. The Tribunal reviewed several cases, including the CFA's comments in Capital Well Limited v Bond Star Development Limited, which suggested the Ordinance might permit consolidated sales to prevent 'ransom power' and facilitate urban renewal. The Tribunal concluded that to achieve the Ordinance's objective of fair compensation for minority owners, consolidated sales with reserve prices based on merged site value should be allowed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents, including: - Capital Well Limited v Bond Star Development Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 578: CFA's comments suggesting the Ordinance might allow consolidated sales to prevent 'ransom power' and facilitate urban renewal. - Sin Ho Yuen v Fineway Properties Ltd (2011) 14 HKCFAR 497: Supported the Ordinance's objective of ensuring fair and reasonable compensation for minority owners. - Good Faith Properties Ltd v Cibean Development Co Ltd [2014] 5 HKLRD 534: Supported the Ordinance's objective of ensuring fair and reasonable compensation for minority owners. - Bond Star Development Ltd v Capital Wall Ltd [2004] 2 HKLRD 856: CA decision restricting the scope of sale. - Day Bright Development Ltd & Ors v Choi Pak Ling & Ors [2014] 4 HKC 364: Tribunal decision supporting valuation on an individual site basis. - Supergoal Investment Limited v Five Ming House Limited & Others [2014] 1 HKLRD 286: Tribunal decision allowing consolidated lots and valuation on a merged site basis. - Many Gain Investment Limited v Chan Fai Ho & Others (unreported) LDCS28000/2012, 29 November 2013: Tribunal decision suggesting all lots need to be disclosed to reflect merged site value. ### Decision & Orders The Tribunal ruled that it has the power and discretion to direct the sale of adjoining lots, subject to different applications, as a merged site, and to set a reserve price reflecting the full redevelopment potential of the merged site. This will ensure fair and reasonable compensation for minority owners and facilitate urban renewal. Specific orders will be detailed in a subsequent decision, but the ruling generally supports the minority owners' position on consolidated sales and reserve price setting. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the dual objectives of the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (LCSRO): facilitating urban renewal while ensuring fair and reasonable compensation for minority owners. The Tribunal clarified that to achieve these goals, it can direct the consolidated sale of lots from multiple applications and set reserve prices based on the merged site's redevelopment potential. This provides important guidance for future compulsory sale applications involving multiple contiguous lots, potentially encouraging majority owners to consider merged site potential from the outset to avoid disputes and enhance efficiency. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.