A study of the non‐legal factors that may affect the quantum of land compensation in the Lands Tribunal in Hong Kong

Abstract

Purpose To identify the non‐legal factors that may affect the quantum of compensation determined by the Lands Tribunal and to examine the impacts of the non‐legal factors identified on the quantum of compensation.

Design/methodology/approach Data are chosen from judgments made by the Lands Tribunal from 1980 to 2005. A total of 52 cases are studied. The amount of compensation granted is treated as the dependent variable. A number of factors such as the size of the claimant's claim in relation to the government's offer are used in turn as independent variables. Multiple regression analysis is then used in studying the functional relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable. The expression demonstrates whether the independent variables are positively or negatively correlated with the dependent variable, as well as the extent of the correlation.

Findings It is found that the factors: the ratio of the applicant's claim to the government's offer, the appointments of counsel and theirs seniorities are significant factors affecting the amount awarded by the Lands Tribunal, while the appointment of qualified general practice surveyor as expert witnesses and their respective seniorities are insignificant factors. Among the three significant factors, the ratio of the applicant's claim to the government's offer and the seniorities of counsel have positive impacts on the amount awarded by the Lands Tribunal as expected while surprisingly, the appointment of counsel has a negative impact on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Lands Tribunal.

Research limitations/implications The first limitation is the relatively small sample size. Hence, there is a question of representativeness of the empirical result. Secondly, the variability of some of the factors is also insufficient, such as the seniority of counsel. Thirdly, there is a possibility of other forms of human bias in the decisions of the Lands Tribunal, which may not be possible to be quantified and taken into account in the model.

Practical implications The paper will surely arouse the interest of legal academics and practitioners in the study of judicial behaviour which is a most non‐existent in Hong Kong and rare in UK.

Originality/value The paper is the first one in the area relating to courts in Hong Kong. It is expected to be controversial amongst the judiciary, the legal and the surveying profession and has started a page in the study of judicial behaviour in the Lands Tribunal.