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
Date of hearing : 9 October 1998
Date of judgment : 9 October 1998
J U D G M E N T
1. I am only prepared to give a judgment about the facts of this case.
2. I have already dealt with those persons who were eligible for compensation but disputed the amount, and that part of the case isfinished.
3. This part of the case refers to eligibility. In order to be eligible for compensation, a person must have been residing in Rennie’sMill in June 1961 and continued to live there until April 1995; and that must have been their principal home. The reasons for thisare set out in full in my main Judgment in 1996. These are issues of fact for me to decide. As I have 480 or so cases to deal with,I do not intend to give separate judgments for each, but merely to indicate whether I am satisfied that the person has proved thathe is eligible.
4. In the first part of this case people kept complaining about the loss of Rennie’s Mill. As I told them continuously, that is irrelevant.Similarly, the loss of a cottage is also irrelevant here. All that I am concerned with is whether a person has a right for compensation.As far as Mr Ong Heng Long (under Case No.323) is concerned, on the facts, his application is dismissed.
Mr Ong Heng Long, Applicant in Person
Mr Peter Ng, inst’d by M/s Simmons & Simmons, for the Respondent