Macau | Local branch of Confucius Institute operative by early 2018
| 10:00pm
Film Festival | Hunting Season wins the Best Film Award at IFFAM
| 09:28pm
Macau | Future uncertain for Canidrome dogs as deadline looms
| 09:17pm
Macau | Local hotel industry service is on top of the list in Asia - Hotelier Awards Director
| 06:58pm
Two astronauts, cosmonaut return from five-month ISS mission
| 06:43pm
Macau | Record-breaking land transaction in Macau SAR confirmed, William Kwan vendor in the deal
| 06:27pm
Macau | Gov't striving to complete internal legislative procedure for taxi regulations by Q1 2018 - Sonia Chan
| 06:21pm
Film Festival | Brazilian director and producer at IFFAM Project Market highlight feedback from industry
| 06:13pm
Seven decades in the making, EU set to sign defence pact
| 06:00pm
Macau Lifestyle | DFS Masters of Time luxury watch exhibition to be held until Feb. 28, 2018
| 05:53pm

Pac On Land Appeal denied by court

The Court of Second Instance ruled against an appeal lodged by property developer Interbloc-Materiais de Construção (Macau), S.A.R.L. regarding the declaration of expiration of a land plot concession. The plot is located in Pac On reclamation Zone G in Taipa, with the Chief Executive (CE) having declared the expiration of the land concession last June. […]

The Court of Second Instance ruled against an appeal lodged by property developer Interbloc-Materiais de Construção (Macau), S.A.R.L. regarding the declaration of expiration of a land plot concession.
The plot is located in Pac On reclamation Zone G in Taipa, with the Chief Executive (CE) having declared the expiration of the land concession last June.
The Second Court ruled that the land concession expiration was due to the contract having expired, instead of the claim by the developer that the decision was punitive.
The plot was undeveloped at the time of the concession’s expiration, with the developer claiming in the appeal that it had not been utilised due to an unstable economic environment, citing the Asian financial crisis in 1997, SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome) in 2003 and social instabilities during the term of the Portuguese government.
However, the Court stated that there were terms in the contract obliging the developer to inform the administration when issues arose that were beyond their control, and the appellant had failed to do so.
Meanwhile, the Court pointed out that the original concession had expired in December 1995, before the financial crisis in 1997, ruling the reasoning unsubstantial.
The appellant, on the other hand, also accused the administration of having double standards, for accepting the reasons made in other similar cases, but rejecting the arguments made by the appellant of the case in question.
In response, the Court explained that similar cases still have time before the expiration of their 25-year concessions, while the case in question had already seen its concession expire.

OPINION

624 POSTS0 COMMENTS
228 POSTS0 COMMENTS
186 POSTS0 COMMENTS
103 POSTS0 COMMENTS