LAW PO LIN v. HAU KWAI FAT AND OTHERS

LAW PO LIN v. HAU KWAI FAT AND OTHERS

The court found on the facts that the father had exclusive possession for decades and that from receipt of the demand letter of 19 April 1995 the mother and father acted with common intention and manifest acts of possession making them joint adverse possessors; more than 12 years elapsed and under Cap 347 the defendants' title was extinguished, so the plaintiff is entitled to a possessory title and judgment.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1345
Parties
Plaintiff (deceased): Law Po Lin; Substitute Plaintiff: Lee Yin Ping Sandy; Defendants: 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 2018
Case Number
HCA1443/2014
Procedural Posture
Writ Action for Declaration of Possessory Title (adverse Possession) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff has obtained a possessory title to the relevant part of DD76 Lot 2104; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Period, Possessory Title, Joint Adverse Possession, Absentee Ownership
Source Language
EN
Property Law Limitation Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation Period Possessory Title Joint Adverse Possession Absentee Ownership

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Law Po Lin

Plaintiff (deceased)

Lee Yin Ping Sandy

Substitute Plaintiff

1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Writ Action for Declaration of Possessory Title (adverse Possession) / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff acquired possessory title by adverse possession of DD76 Lot 2104
  2. 2 Whether the wife/mother could be in joint adverse possession with the husband/father
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' paper title was extinguished by lapse of the 12‑year limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the facts that the father had exclusive possession for decades and that from receipt of the demand letter of 19 April 1995 the mother and father acted with common intention and manifest acts of possession making them joint adverse possessors; more than 12 years elapsed and under Cap 347 the defendants' title was extinguished, so the plaintiff is entitled to a possessory title and judgment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff has obtained a possessory title to the relevant part of DD76 Lot 2104; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs to plaintiff

Orders

  • Declare that the plaintiff has obtained possessory title to the relevant part of DD76 Lot 2104 and that the defendants' registered title to that part is extinguished subject to minor amendments to Annexure I boundary description
  • Dismiss the defendants' counterclaim for delivery of vacant possession