The government reneged and forcibly demolished the factory; the merchant sought help from Zhiming and ultimately won a complete victory.
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 where the fruit production base was located for commercial development, and rejected the compensation standard of 1,300 yuan per square meter at market price proposed by Vodafone. 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 Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, and under the guidance and leadership of its lawyers, 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 objections, arguing that the plaintiff, Vodafone Company, was not qualified. In response, Attorney Zhiming held that the aforementioned claims made by the defendant, aside from the signed agreement, were not supported by any other relevant evidence and were merely an attempt to confuse the issues.
Additionally, Attorney Zhiming argued that the land acquisition involved in this case was not for public welfare purposes but for commercial use, and therefore could not be compulsorily expropriated under the law. Moreover, the demolition office offered compensation of only 240 yuan per square meter, far below the 1,300 yuan per square meter standard for similar structures. In summary, this case essentially involved the district urban management bureau acting to "coordinate" with the demolition office's work by preemptively demolishing under the pretext of "removing illegal structures." This constituted an unlawful act compounded by further wrongdoing. On these grounds, it was asserted that the people's court should confirm the illegality of the district urban management bureau's series of actions and compensate the plaintiff, Vodafone Company, for its economic losses.
In the end, the Huaihua Intermediate People's Court withstood immense pressure and adopted the guiding opinions of Zhiming lawyers. In mid-to-late 2014, it issued a judgment confirming that the district urban management bureau's two administrative actions against Vodafone Company—the "order to demolish" penalty and the "forced demolition"—were unlawful, and ordered 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 in question. With that, the plaintiff Vodafone Company, under the guidance of Zhiming lawyers, achieved a complete victory.
