Reductions based on water supply status were to be calculated at a percentage prescribed by resolution of the Legislative Council of the amount of rates payable.
The “adoption” provision remained a feature in the rating system in Hong Kong until 1973, when the requirement for annual valuations was removed.
In November 1998, the Government announced that new valuation lists would be prepared to take effect from 1 April 1999 and revaluations would thereafter be conducted on an annual basis.
The new valuation lists incorporating Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung and a strip along the Castle Peak Road were declared in 1956.
Based on the rationale of the previous relief scheme, Section 19 of the Ordinance was amended in 1984 to provide a mechanism to phase in the effect of infrequent revaluation.
Similar rates concessions were granted in the years 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 with varying ceilings in the exempted amount as to provide relief or share the economic prosperity with the public.
Before taking any legal action to recover arrears of rates, a warning letter will be issued to the defaulter to demand immediate payment.
The Chief Executive may order a refund of any amount of rates paid, including any surcharges thereon due to default in payment, notwithstanding any other provisions in the Ordinance.
In 1998, as one of the special relief measures to address the impact of the Asian financial crisis at that time, the Chief Executive ordered a refund to all ratepayers of the rates paid for the April to June 1998 quarter.
The District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine any action for the recovery of any sum which is declared by any enactment to be recoverable as a civil debt if the amount claimed does not exceed $1,000,000.
The landlord’s obligation to bear “the costs of repairs and other expenses necessary to maintain the tenement in a state to command that rent” implies that ordinary disrepair is disregarded in ascertaining the rateable value.
Hong Kong has adopted one of the main principles in UK rating law, the rule of rebus sic stantibus, a Latin phrase meaning “as things stand”.
This valuation method may be applicable to properties such as oil depots, golf courses, recreation clubs and other similar tenements.
General revaluations are to redistribute the total rates liability fairly amongst ratepayers according to the prevailing rental levels of the properties they occupy.
Since 1999, general revaluations have been conducted on an annual basis to ensure that all rateable values in the valuation list are up-to-date and rates are charged equitably according to prevailing market rentals.
Any person who knowingly makes a false statement or refuses to furnish the particulars requested is guilty of an offence and may be liable for prosecution.
Upon completion of the revaluation exercise, a valuation list containing the descriptions and new rateable values of all assessed tenements will be prepared by the Commissioner.
The Commissioner is required to sign a declaration that, to the best of her knowledge and belief, the list contains a true account of the address, description and rateable value of every tenement included therein.
The Rating (Effective Date of Interim Valuation) Regulation applies to newly completed buildings by reference to the relevant documents which allow the property to be occupied.
If that person is not satisfied with the Commissioner's decision arising from the proposal or objection, he can lodge an appeal with the Hong Kong Lands Tribunal.
Upon receiving a valid proposal, the Commissioner will review the assessment and may confirm or alter the entry in the valuation list.
The decision must be issued before 1 December immediately following the making of the proposal of a revaluation year or within such other time as the Chief Executive may direct.
At any time before the Commissioner issues a notice of decision, the person making a proposal or objection may withdraw it in writing.
However, the Lands Tribunal may allow new facts to be raised at the hearing provided they fall within the stated grounds of the proposal or objection.
Midland Bank Ltd. v Lanham (VO) [1978] RA 1 The Lands Tribunal seemed to have applied a much wider meaning to the words “mode or category of occupation” than was indicated in the Fir Mill Ltd. case.
It said: “Finally, all alternative cases to which the hereditament in its existing state could be put in the real world, and which would be in the minds of the competing bidders in the market, are to be taken as being within the same mode or category, where the existence of such competition can be established by evidence.” Ho Tang Fat v CRV RA 12/78 The Tribunal had considered the UK cases Fir Mill Ltd. v Royton UDC and Jones (VO) and Midland Bank Ltd. v Lanham (VO) and held that factory use was not in the same mode or category of the subject tenement, which was a community hall.
CRV v Lai Kit Lau Mutual Aid Committee and Another [1986] HKLR 93 Following Midland Bank Ltd., it was held that all realistic alternative uses to which the premises could be put, as revealed by evidence, should be taken into account.
The approach in Midland Bank Ltd. case (“all alternative uses to which the hereditament in its existing state could be put in the real world, and which would be in the minds of competing bidders in the market, are to be taken as being within the same mode or category...”) was rejected.
Saunders v Maltby (VO) [1976] 19 RRC 33, CA The principle in Wexler v Playle was qualified by the Court of Appeal that if the cost of repair would be out of proportion to the value of the house, so much so that a hypothetical landlord would not do them all, then it must not be assumed he would do them.
Premises in a very run down condition should be assessed on a refurbished basis as the cost was not out of proportion to the value of the property (Man Sai Cheong).