IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.114 OF 1998
Coram : Hon Sears, J. in Court
Dates of hearing : 15 and 16 September 1998
Date of judgment : 16 September 1998
J U D G M E N T
1. I have given a judgment this morning already in Cases No.431 and 432. I am working off a master schedule which has been providedto me, and I am using these numbers for the sake of a method of identifying the various cases.
2. These are now B740 and B833. I have given an earlier judgment emphasizing that all the villagers have is a right of occupation. Althoughthey could sell their actual cottage, they could not sell their right of occupation, nor could it be inherited. So the right of occupationonly lasts in their life time. The method of taking possession was by Notices to Quit, and I have held that they should have beenoffered compensation when those notices were served, and this is the hearing for the compensation.
3. One of the two applicants, Mr Billy Yeung says he should get $25 million. This is an absurd claim and is based on really nothing.He was offered a sum of money and accepted it. The Housing Authority have offered to him an additional sum of money. Quite frankly,I do not think that to be necessary and I think he is very lucky to be offered an additional sum of money, the total comes to about$1.5 million. I reject his witness’ evidence, the valuation is really a nonsense. His entitlement is $540,781, the figure put forwardin the Housing Authority List.
4. I should have said to the earlier two claimants who say they are not interested in money, if these two claimants do not want themoney, the money can go back for the benefit of the Hong Kong people.
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
Mr Billy Yeung, Applicant in Person
Mr Yim King Wan, Applicant in person
Miss Gladys Li, SC and Mr Peter Ng, inst’d by /s Simmons & Simmons, for the Respondent