Elderly woman allowed to collect belongings from Tai Hang Sai Estate after court sets aside order to evict her
Hong Kong Free Press
An elderly resident of a private housing estate slated for redevelopment has been allowed to collect her belongings from her former home after a Hong Kong court set aside an order to evict her.
The ruling would allow Tam Wai-lan to re-enter the premises of Tai Hang Sai Estate to take back her belongings, according to District Judge Gary Lam’s judgement handed down on Thursday.
Judge Lam said that “the defendant well knows that it is practically impossible for her to move back into the Premises for residence purpose. All she would like, as she has affirmed in the affirmation, is to go back to get back her left behinds.”
Most residents of Tai Hang Sai Estate had moved out of the privately owned low-rent estate by March 15 last year — the deadline for eviction. The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation (HKSHC), which manages the estate, offered rental subsidies and relocation assistance to eligible tenants.
However, residents, many of whom are elderly, opposed what they called the “unfair and improper” relocation plan, saying they lacked proof of income to rent on the private market.
Redevelopment to be completed in 2029
The redevelopment, slated for completion in 2029, plans to provide more than 3,300 units, more than double the existing number. That includes 1,300 units to rehouse eligible tenants and 2,000 units for Hongkongers to buy their first flats at a discounted price.
Referring to arguments put forth in a judicial review that was granted permission to commence last September, Judge Lam said there were sufficient grounds to set aside an order to fast-track proceedings allowing the HKSHC to take back the flat.
See also: The last days of Tai Hang Sai Estate, Hong Kong’s only privately owned low-rental housing complex
Considered by the Court of First Instance, judicial reviews examine the decision-making processes of administrative bodies. Issues under review must be shown to affect the wider public interest.
The arguments put forth by the defence in Thursday’s case were essentially the same as the grounds in the judicial review, Judge Lam said.
It was submitted in the legal challenge that the rental assistance measures provided “no guarantee” that residents would be able to find suitable alternative housing.
It also argued that the arrangements had breached government directives stipulating that “satisfactory rehousing and relocation of affected residents is a precondition to redevelopment, and were thus unlawful.”
The lack of a proper rehousing arrangement was “irrational, perverse and… unreasonable,” the judicial review’s submission said.
Barrister Lydia Leung, acting for the defence on Thursday, had initially argued that Tam did not receive a document in the mail and was not notified of a court hearing on May 31 last year.
The hearing went ahead in Tam’s absence and the District Court ruled in favour of the HKSHC, allowing the expedition of legal proceedings to repossess her flat. Tam then applied for that ruling to be set aside.
Judge Lam rejected the defence’s submission, saying he was not convinced that the 50-page document could not fit into the mailbox. But he ruled that the grounds of the earlier legal challenge were generally applicable to any tenant evicted for the redevelopment.
Setting aside the eviction notice would not amount to prejudice against the landlord, Judge Lam ruled, saying that Tam only wished to get her belongings, and not to repossess the flat.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-title {
font-size: 1.2em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .entry-meta {
display: flex;
flex-wrap: wrap;
align-items: center;
margin-top: 0.5em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-meta {
font-size: 0.8em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .avatar {
height: 25px;
width: 25px;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail{
margin: 0;
margin-bottom: 0.25em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail img {
height: auto;
width: 100%;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail figcaption {
margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles p {
margin: 0.5em 0;
}
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.