Barrier raised: The Court of Final Appeal has ruled the Housing Authority's sale of retail and carpark facilities to the Link Real Estate Investment Trust is lawful.

The Housing Authority's sale of retail and carpark facilities to the Link Real Estate Investment Trust is consistent with its statutory object of securing the provision of the facilities, and the sale is therefore within the authority's capacity, Chief Justice Andrew Li says.

The Court of Final Appeal delivered its judgement today regarding public housing tenant Lo Siu-lan's appeal against the sale of public housing retail and carpark facilities.

Chief Justice Li said the authority plainly has the power to sell the properties to the Link REIT as stipulated in Section 4(2)(a) of the Housing Ordinance. But any exercise of the power of disposition should be consistent with the authority's object as laid down in Section 4(1) to secure the provision of housing and ancillary amenities for such kinds or classes of people as the authority may, subject to the Chief Executive's approval, determine.

Chief Justice Li pointed out the critical question is whether the sale of the retail and carpark facilities to Link REIT is consistent with the object of "securing the provision of" the facilities.

He explained to "secure" the provision of the facilities does not mean the authority must itself be the direct provider, which would involve its direct control, or that, having been the direct provider for some years, the authority may not stop being the direct provider and give up control.

There is no basis to suggest the statute contains any provision, express or implied, that public housing tenants have any statutory right to the authority's continued retention and control of the facilities which the tenants are still using.

Chief Justice Li said the authority secures the provision of facilities so long as the facilities are available, though they are provided not by the authority but by Link REIT, a third party over whom the authority has no control.

The other four judges - Justice Bokhary, Justice Chan, Justice Ribeiro and Sir Antony Mason - agreed with the Chief Justice's judgement.