A local court has ruled the director of housing has discretion in determining the reliability of asset valuations submitted by applicants.
The case concerns an applicant for economic housing, otherwise known as subsidized housing, who acquired a real property unit in Hong Kong in 1989.
The applicant, referred to by the court publicly as A with an undisclosed gender, filed an application for the housing in 2013. The household consisted of A and their mother. In the application, A declared their net asset worth as MOP10,000.
The following year, the Housing Bureau (IH) notified A to pick a housing unit before signing a preliminary contract with A for the unit. Nonetheless, before signing the final contract, A was requested to produce documents about their Hong Kong property, including a valuation report.
In the report submitted by A, dated 2019, a reliable valuation firm proved the Hong Kong unit’s worth in 2013 to be about MOP2.2 million. This amount, however, exceeded the net asset ceiling for a household of two, so the then director of housing rejected A’s application in 2021, pursuant to the applicable laws.
Following the director of housing’s decision, A submitted another valuation report from another firm in 2021.
It stated the value of the Hong Kong unit in 2013 was HKD1.6 million. But the then director of housing did not take this value into consideration and maintained the decision to reject A’s application.
A then appealed to the Administrative Court, which ruled in favor of the then director of housing. Another appeal was made with the Court of Second Instance (TSI).
The TSI agreed with the opinions of the Public Prosecutions Office (MP), with both entities finding no flaws in the lower court in terms of reviewing the factual proof in relation to the appealed action.
The court noted that two reports – both from reliable firms – were submitted, one before and the other after the then director of housing’s decision. Pursuant to applicable laws, the director of housing is authorized to decide on the credibility of these reports at their discretion, proving that the director’s acceptance of the first report was reasonable, the court decided.
The court also underlined that applicants are responsible for proving their eligibility for economic housing acquisition. Evidence of eligibility that is less favorable to applicants should be considered, should two or more conflicting pieces of evidence be submitted, the court added.
