November 04, 2003

Central & Wanchai Reclamations - Order of Events

4/1/ 2002
  Invitation to apply for pre-qualification for CR3 tender was published.


12/8/2002
  Five parties were invited to tender for the contract with closing date set for 11 October 2002.


30/9/2002
  Tender closing date extended to 8 November 2002.


31/102002
  Tender closing date further extended to 22 November 2002.


29/11/2002
  SPH attended a TPB objection hearing to the Draft Wanchai Development Plan (WD2) on the basis that it contravened the PHO. SPH advised the TPB that it might have to take legal action if the TPB approved a plan that was unlawful.


17/12/ 2002
  CE-in-Council approved the Central Reclamation Plan (CR3) for 23.11 ha for the purposes of provision of:

       Land for infrastructure, including the CWB;
       Cultural and government facilities;
       Commercial developments;
       An ‘open deck’; and
       Open space.


23/12/2002
  Tender price for CR3 was opened.


27/12/2002
  CR3 was gazetted.


7/1/2003
  SPH sent letter to TPB giving notice that it would institute JR proceedings for WD2 after knowing that its objections had been rejected by the TPB.


10/1/2003
  TPB gazetted a new WD2.


30/1/2003
  Central Tender Board (CTB) met to discuss tender submissions for CR3. TDD and its consultant recommended on the 28 January 2003 that the award be given to China Harbour. At the meeting, TDD informed the CTB of the possibility of an application for JR by the SPH for WR might delay the authorization of the OZP, which would in turn affect the authorization for the CWB tunnel works. The CTB asked TDD to substantiate its latest assessment of the CWB works being carried out according to the tender schedule.


6/2/2003
  CTB met again. Territory Development Department (TDD) noted that the chances of the CWB works being carried out according to the tender schedule was slim but government wanted to press on with the CWB works within the CR3 tenure. “The option of issuing a new instruction to carry out the CWB Works after completion of the reclamation works would be extremely disruptive and would not be in the public interest”. CTB recommended that CR3 contract be awarded to Leighton JV.


7/2/2003
  SFST approved the CTB recommendation to award CR3 contract to Leighton JV.


8/2/2003
  Tenderer, China Harbour, requested meeting with the Director of Territory Development (DTD) to discuss the tender.


10/2/2003
  Letter issued to Leighton JV to award CR3 contract to it with contract commencement date 28 February 2003. China Harbour continued to seek meeting, requesting that DTD withhold the award pending clarification. Tendered, Penta, also asked for the award to be withheld.


11/2/2003
  DTD advised China Harbour that the award had been made.


12/2/2003
  China Harbour filed complaint to the Review Body on Bid Challenges that the WTO GPA had been contravened. Subsequently, other tenderers also filed complaints.

14/2/2003
  SPH attended another TPB objection hearing on the new WD2 plan and repeated its objections to various aspects of plan including that it might have to take legal action if the TPB approved a plan that was unlawful.


27/2/2003 & 28/2/2003
  SPH submitted application for JR for the TPB approval for the WD2, and leave was granted on 28 February 2003.


31/3/2003
  Opening submissions to the Review Body began and in the end over 100 days was needed for the process to be completed.


8/7/2003
  Judgment for the JR was handed down granting an Order of Certiorari to quash the TPB’s decision on WD2.


14/7/2003
  Review Body handed down its ruling noting that the issuance of the tender award to Leighton JV was done in “undue haste”, and the effect of TDD’s “precipitous action” has been “to render nugatory any substantive recommendation that this Panel could make.” The Panel noted that the correct procedure would have been for the TDD to ask all the tenderers to re-tender.


17/7/2003
  SPH requested the TPB, SHPL and SETW to ‘urgently review’ present and future harbour reclamation projects to ensure they comply with the PHO in light of the Judgment.


29/7/2003
  Dredging work for CR3 began.


11/8/2003
  SPH wrote to TPB, SHPL and SETW again to urge urgent review.


19/8/ 2003
  TPB replied to SPH that: “it will take the necessary steps to review those OZPs involving reclamation schemes to ensure they comply with the Judgment and are within the law”.


26/8/2003
  TPB applied for leave to appeal the WD2 decision seeking to ‘leapfrog’ to the CFA to seek a determination on the legality of the TPB’s decision to approve the WR, and also a statement of the legal principles for the interpretation of the PHO.


26/8/2003
  SHPL replied to SPH that: “it is our intention … to refer the relevant approved OZPs to the TPB for review, where found necessary”.


27/8/2003
  SPH wrote to the TPB urging immediate review of reclamation projects and emphasized that pending the review, “all works should be suspended in the meantime”.


4/9/2003
  CFA indicated the possibility of setting the appeal down for 9 December to 19 December 2003, which was subsequently approved by the Appeal Committee on 29 September 2003.


13/9/2003 & 16/9/2003
  Rock filling and piling works for CR3 began.


17/9/2003
  SPH’s solicitors wrote to TPB, SHPL and SETW requesting them to review the continued implementation of the CR3 asking for cessation of continuing with reclamation works.


24/9/2003
  DoJ replied to SPH that: “the Director of Territory Development, in consultation with his consultants, the Transport Department and the Highways Department, has initiated a review of CR3 to ascertain if it meets the three tests set out in the Judgment. The Government is satisfied that the reclamation works currently underway are in compliance with the three tests, and are hence lawful”.


26/9/2003 & 27/9/2002
  Application for JR for CR3 granted and on 27 September 2003, the SHPL announced that all marine works related to CR3 would be suspended temporarily pending the outcome of the SPH’s application for interim injunctive relief.


3/10/2003
  Hearing for interim relief for CR3.


6/10/2003
  Ruling for interim relief for CR3 handed down. The court did not grant the interim injunctive relief because the SPH was in no position to provide an undertaking in damages to protect the respondents and that the works being done can be ‘undone’ pending the JR proceedings set for February 2004.

Posted by RealityMaster at November 4, 2003 06:27 PM