Government reneged on its promise and forcibly demolished factory; business sought help from Zhiming Law Firm
In 2005, Shenzhen Vodafone Industrial Co., Ltd. responded to preferential policies and established a fruit production base in a district of Huaihua City, which was put into operation in 2006. However, by 2010, the Huaihua municipal government decided to requisition the land occupied by the fruit production base for commercial development and rejected the compensation standard of 1,300 yuan per square meter proposed by Vodafone based on market prices. While the two sides were in dispute, the Urban Management Bureau of a district in Huaihua City forcibly demolished the fruit production base in October 2013, claiming it was an "illegal structure." In response, Vodafone entrusted lawyers from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, who, under their guidance and leadership, filed an administrative lawsuit against the district Urban Management Bureau with the Huaihua Intermediate People's Court.
In this case, the defendant, the Urban Management Bureau of a certain district, had raised a rebuttal, arguing that the plaintiff, Vodafone Company, was not qualified. In response to this,LawyersThe defendant, the Urban Management Bureau of a certain district, in raising the aforementioned claims, has not submitted any other relevant evidence to support them apart from the signed agreement, which is purely an attempt to confuse and mislead.
Meanwhile,LawyersIt is further submitted that the land acquisition involved in this case is not for public welfare purposes but for commercial use, and therefore cannot be compulsorily expropriated under the law. Moreover, the demolition office only offered compensation at the rate of 240 yuan per square meter, far below the compensation standard of 1,300 yuan per square meter for similar buildings. In summary, this case is in fact one where the District Urban Management Bureau, in order to "cooperate" with the demolition office's work, took the lead in demolishing under the pretext of "removing illegal structures." This constitutes an unlawful act compounded by further error. On this basis, it is requested that the People's Court confirm the illegality of the series of actions taken by the District Urban Management Bureau and order compensation for the economic losses suffered by the plaintiff, Vodafone Company.
In the end, the Huaihua Intermediate People's Court withstood immense pressure and adopted theLawyersBased on the guiding opinions, a judgment was issued in mid-to-late 2014, confirming that the two administrative actions taken by the District Urban Management Bureau against Vodafone Company—namely, the "order to demolish" penalty and the "forced demolition"—were unlawful, and ordering the District Urban Management Bureau to take remedial measures for Vodafone Company in accordance with the relevant regulations in effect at the time of demolishing the equipment and buildings involved in the case. At this point, the plaintiff Vodafone Company's side, inLawyersUnder the guidance of [him/her/them], a complete victory was achieved in the lawsuit.
