WONG SHING CHAU v. TO KWOK KEUNG

WONG SHING CHAU v. TO KWOK KEUNG

The Court held that adverse possession could not be established against the tso or the plaintiff's predecessor‑in‑title because births of new members created continuing equitable interests restarting limitation periods, so the defendant failed to extinguish the tso's or predecessor's title; accordingly the appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WONG SHING CHAU v. TO KWOK KEUNG
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: WONG SHING CHAU; Defendant/appellant: TO KWOK KEUNG
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 June 2008
Case Number
CACV20/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (possession of Land / Adverse Possession) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From District Court Order of HH Judge Leung (21 June 2007)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Tso (village Trust) Beneficial Interests, Limitation Ordinance Operation (ss.7(2), 10, 22), Recovery of Possession
Source Language
en
Property Land Law Equity Limitation Law Trusts Adverse Possession Tso (village Trust) Beneficial Interests Limitation Ordinance Operation (ss.7(2),10,22) +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG SHING CHAU

Plaintiff/respondent

TO KWOK KEUNG

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (possession of Land / Adverse Possession) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From District Court Order of HH Judge Leung (21 June 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adverse possession can operate against a tso and its members
  2. 2 Whether the defendant established factual and continuing exclusive possession since 1972
  3. 3 Effect of births of new tso members on the running of limitation periods

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that adverse possession could not be established against the tso or the plaintiff's predecessor‑in‑title because births of new members created continuing equitable interests restarting limitation periods, so the defendant failed to extinguish the tso's or predecessor's title; accordingly the appeal failed notwithstanding that the trial judge's factual finding on possession was unsustainable on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of HH Judge Leung dated 21 June 2007 upheld
  • Costs as per the Court's direction (no further specific costs order recorded in reasons)