VICTORIA LANDS TRIBUNAL
HOLDEN AT VICTORIA
ACTION NOS. 6-23 CONSOLIDATED
Coram: Judge Li, Presiding Officer in Court, M.W. Phillips, Member, Lands Tribunal
Date: 22nd day of June, 1983
1. This is an application under Section 53(2)(c) for repossession of the suit premises, namely Nos. 4, 6 and 8 of Arbuthnot Road, HongKong for redevelopment.
2. It is not in dispute and at all events we are satisfied that the suit premises are post-war buildings to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance applies. Nor is it in dispute and We find as a fact as to the Landlord-Tenant Relationship amongst the parties.
3. From the evidence of A.W.1, CHIU Tak-kwong, the Chartered Engineer, an authorised person for the redeveloper, the applicant company,we find as facts as stated in the paragraph. The total floor area of the suit premises comprising the three buildings adjoined toeach other is 2054.2 square metres and the total floor area available after redevelopment will be 3571.47 square metres. There willbe 44 units of which 8 will be non-domestic premises as compared with 25 units with 3 units of non-domestic premises as at present.This will result in an increase in the number of dwellings for domestic use as well as for business premises. The site is oppositeor obliquely opposite to the entrance of the Central Police Station, which is suitable for business premises on the lower floors.We are quite satisfied that the scheme for redevelopment is conducive to the public interest within the meaning of Section 53A(1).
4. The Building Authority has approved the Building Plan.
5. We also accept the evidence of A.W.2, HO Kwong-chat, a director of the applicant company, and find as facts as stated in this paragraph.The applicant company purchased the three buildings between 1980 and 1981 for the total consideration of 24.25 million dollars exclusiveof stamp duty and legal costs. The total yields from rents are about $27,000 a month, giving roughly 1.34% per annum, as capitalreturn. The buildings were purchased for redevelopment. The applicant company genuinely intends to redevelop. The authorised andfully paid up capital of the company amounts to HK$10,000,000. The shareholders had advanced HK$16,554,272 for this project. Togetherwith another HK$10,000,000 advanced from the shareholders (which money was crystallized into the said paid up capital) the loan partlyfinanced the project. The applicant company took up a building mortgage with the Hang Seng Bank Limited for a building loan of HK$10,000,000. Exhibit A.14 refers. If need be, shareholders of the applicant company, some of whom are reputed businessmen anddevelopers will further finance the project. We have come to the conclusion that the applicant company has sufficient means to carryout the project.
6. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.13 the applicant company was only one in the group of associated companies and the financialmargin between the costs and the funds available is not very substantial. We have given due consideration to that and we come tothe finding that the funds are sufficient to meet the project. At any rate, the shareholders of substantial means will put up additionalfunds if absolutely necessary, bearing in mind that such additional funds will not be substantial.
7. We have also considered counsel’s submission that clauses 2, 6A and 8 laid down stringent conditions. However these conditions areno more stringent than usual conditions which normally appear in a standard building mortgage, i.e. agreement and assignment.
8. For the above reasons we make an order for repossession as applied for, but subject to the conditions to be imposed and specifiedas follows:-
Dated the 22nd day of June, 1983.