FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK WAI t/a WING BO MOTOR CO AND ANOTHER

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK WAI t/a WING BO MOTOR CO AND ANOTHER

The application was declined because the applicant failed to identify or prove a viable adverse possession claim beyond the Yellow Area shown on the Sept 2013 plan, the plaintiffs reinstated the prior status quo by erecting the New Fence in the presence of their solicitor and surveyor, and damages were an adequate remedy; thus injunctive relief was not justified.

Citation
FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK WAI t/a WING BO MOTOR CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: CHEUNG CHEUNG (張長); 1st Defendant: LEE KWOK WAI trading as WING BO MOTOR CO (永寶汽車公司); 2nd Defendant: ALL OTHER OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 June 2015
Case Number
HCMP2851/2013
Procedural Posture
Possession of Land / Adverse Possession / Interlocutory Injunction Application (decision in Chambers)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction declined; costs to be heard
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Interlocutory Injunction, Possession of Land, Status Quo, Adequacy of Damages
Source Language
EN
Land Law Civil Procedure Equity Property Law Adverse Possession Interlocutory Injunction Possession of Land Status Quo +1 more

Case Brief

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

CHEUNG CHEUNG (張長)

2nd Plaintiff

LEE KWOK WAI trading as WING BO MOTOR CO (永寶汽車公司)

1st Defendant

ALL OTHER OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession of Land / Adverse Possession / Interlocutory Injunction Application (decision in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a prima facie adverse possession interest sufficient to justify an interlocutory injunction
  2. 2 Whether the land under adverse possession was adequately identified
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy instead of injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application was declined because the applicant failed to identify or prove a viable adverse possession claim beyond the Yellow Area shown on the Sept 2013 plan, the plaintiffs reinstated the prior status quo by erecting the New Fence in the presence of their solicitor and surveyor, and damages were an adequate remedy; thus injunctive relief was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction declined; costs to be heard

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
  • Parties to be heard on costs