The ex-stakeholder of the land for the former Iek Long Firecracker Factory has been ordered by the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) to pay the outstanding amount of land premium.
According to the statement from the court, the premium amounted to over MOP14 million, and should have been paid by August 18, 1995.
The premium concerned a land plot identified as BT27 in Central Taipa, the court added.
BT27 was first assigned to A, a shareholder of Samtoly Property Development Company Limited, under a land premium of about MOP56 million.
In 1993, A transferred the concession of BT27 to Samtoly without remuneration. An additional land premium of about MOP88 million was charged as the land’s plan of use was changed.
Samtoly has paid a first installment of about MOP35.57 million, as well as three subsequent installments, before raising concerns over the calculation of the land premium. As such, it withheld the last installment, which was supposed to be paid in 1995.
On the other hand, as the then-stakeholder of the land plot of the former firecracker factory, A proposed that BT27’s additional land premium be resolved as the process for land exchange was triggered.
In July 2000, the then Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT) management proposed to the then-Secretary for Transport and Public Works in a report that MOP77 million be refunded to the land concessionaire, but the final installment of the land premium should be paid. The proposal was agreed to by the then-Secretary.
Upon receiving the Financial Services Bureau’s bill for the last installment, the concessionaire filed a lawsuit against the decision.
In 2013, the then DSSOPT management suspended the payment order, citing the land exchange process as reason. The lawsuit was withdrawn as the then-Chief Executive approved the suspension.
On Jul. 25, 2017, the then-Chief Executive terminated the land exchange process. Therefore, BT27’s concessionaire ought to pay the last installment of the land premium. Samtoly’s management filed a lawsuit at the Court of Second Instance against the decision, but the Court rejected the lawsuit.
This series of events has led the case to the top court, which pointed out that the problem regarding the land premium of BT27 and the land exchange process concerning the former firecracker factory should be dealt with separately.
The court also emphasized that disputes over the interpretation, validity or execution of terms of administrative contracts should not be resolved through judicial channels.
