TSOI PING HUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG CHOW LAN AND OTHERS

TSOI PING HUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG CHOW LAN AND OTHERS

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendants' grounds attacked findings of fact where the trial judge properly assessed self-serving evidence and the conclusions were not plainly wrong; the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and no interest of justice justification arose.

Citation
TSOI PING HUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG CHOW LAN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TSOI PING HUNG; 2nd Plaintiff: MAN HING CHEUNG; 1st Defendant: CHEUNG CHOW LAN; 2nd Defendant: TSOI MAN PO; 3rd Defendant: TSOI KO CHIU
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2014
Case Number
DCMP1884/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Land Possession (adverse Possession) / Post Trial Application for Leave to Appeal (district Court)
Outcome
Defendants' application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Factual Possession, Intention to Possess, Leave to Appeal, District Court Practice
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Appeals Adverse Possession Factual Possession Intention to Possess Leave to Appeal District Court Practice

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

Parties

TSOI PING HUNG

1st Plaintiff

MAN HING CHEUNG

2nd Plaintiff

CHEUNG CHOW LAN

1st Defendant

TSOI MAN PO

2nd Defendant

TSOI KO CHIU

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land Possession (adverse Possession) / Post Trial Application for Leave to Appeal (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants obtained factual possession of Part 2 before 3 August 2000
  2. 2 Whether defendants had the necessary intention to possess Part 2 before 3 August 2000
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendants' grounds attacked findings of fact where the trial judge properly assessed self-serving evidence and the conclusions were not plainly wrong; the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and no interest of justice justification arose.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' application dismissed
  • Costs of the application to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs; such costs to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel