TANG KWAN TAI v. TANG KOON LAM AND ANOTHER

TANG KWAN TAI v. TANG KOON LAM AND ANOTHER

The court found the Plaintiff had factual possession and clear animus possidendi from the expiry of the Kadoorie lease (1963/1964), there was no credible evidence of an expressed license extinguishing that possession, the limitation period accordingly ran to bar the First Defendant's title (possessory title acquired by Plaintiff in 1984), and the Second Defendant therefore never acquired any interest.

Citation
TANG KWAN TAI v. TANG KOON LAM AND ANOTHER
Parties
First Defendant: Tang Koon Lam; Second Defendant: Tang Sing Wing
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 January 2002
Case Number
DCCJ14951/2000
Procedural Posture
Action for Declaration of Title (adverse Possession) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; First Defendant's title extinguished by limitation; Second Defendant has no title to the Disputed Land.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Animus Possidendi, Limitation Period, License, Possessory Title
Source Language
EN
Property Law Limitation Law Equity Adverse Possession Animus Possidendi Limitation Period License Possessory Title

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang Koon Lam

First Defendant

Tang Sing Wing

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action for Declaration of Title (adverse Possession) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff had been in adverse possession of the Disputed Land
  2. 2 Whether an expressed license from the landowners prevented adverse possession
  3. 3 When the limitation period began to run and whether the First Defendant's title was extinguished

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Plaintiff had factual possession and clear animus possidendi from the expiry of the Kadoorie lease (1963/1964), there was no credible evidence of an expressed license extinguishing that possession, the limitation period accordingly ran to bar the First Defendant's title (possessory title acquired by Plaintiff in 1984), and the Second Defendant therefore never acquired any interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; First Defendant's title extinguished by limitation; Second Defendant has no title to the Disputed Land.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff
  • Defendants' counterclaim dismissed