plaintiff:
  - CLP POWER HONG KONG LIMITED

defendant:
  - COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

case_reason: Application for review of a case management decision dated 3 November 2008 concerning whether multiple rating appeals should be consolidated and heard together or whether a single test appeal should proceed with other appeals stayed pending its outcome.

judgment_summary: The Lands Tribunal heard an application for review under section 11A of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance regarding a case management decision. The applicant sought to review the decision that designated a single case as a test appeal with other appeals stayed. The Tribunal held that the review process is a two-stage process - first deciding whether there should be a review, then conducting the review if warranted. The Tribunal ruled that respondents are entitled to be heard at the first stage, disagreeing with the ex parte approach in Good Trader Limited v Hinking Investment Limited. The application for review was refused, with the Tribunal maintaining that the test appeal procedure was the appropriate case management approach. The applicant's arguments regarding potential refunds and a new 2008 appeal were found insufficient to warrant revisiting the earlier decision.

jurisdiction_code: HKLDT

jurisdiction_name: Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

case_object:
  - Review of case management decision
  - Consolidation of rating appeals
  - Test appeal procedure
  - Section 11A of Lands Tribunal Ordinance

judgment_result:
  - charge: Application for review of case management decision
    result: Application refused; test appeal procedure maintained

involved_entities:
  - entity_name: Hon Lam J
    reason: President of the Lands Tribunal who presided over the application and delivered the judgment
  - entity_name: Mr Richard Wilmot
    reason: Counsel for the Applicant, instructed by Messrs Holman Fenwick Willan
  - entity_name: Mr Bernard Man
    reason: Counsel for the Respondent, instructed by the Department of Justice
  - entity_name: Good Trader Limited v Hinking Investment Limited
    reason: Case cited (LDCS1000/2006) regarding ex parte review applications, which the Tribunal disagreed with
  - entity_name: Solar Max Limited v Homex Investment Limited
    reason: Case cited (LT358/1997) holding that respondents are entitled to be heard at the first stage of review
  - entity_name: Lee King Sin v Stikeman, Elliott
    reason: Labour Tribunal case cited (HCLA83/2000) regarding review procedures
  - entity_name: Judge Wong
    reason: Presiding officer in Good Trader case who held that first stage could be ex parte
  - entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge Kwan
    reason: Judge in Lee King Sin case that influenced the Good Trader decision
  - entity_name: HEC
    reason: Entity with related appeals mentioned in the judgment regarding consolidated appeals and refund timing
  - entity_name: Lands Tribunal Ordinance
    reason: Legislation governing the review process under section 11A