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

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

The defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had factual possession of Part 2 and the requisite intention to possess Part 2 before 3 August 2000. Consequently adverse possession of Part 2 was not established and plaintiffs are entitled to possession and related relief. The plaintiffs conceded Part 1, and the court declared plaintiffs' title to Part 1 extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance and that the 2nd defendant acquired possessory title to Part 1.

Citation
TSOI PING HUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG CHOW LAM 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
17 January 2014
Case Number
DCMP1884/2012
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute Adverse Possession and Possession Order / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Judgment: defendants succeed on Part 1 by plaintiffs' concession and declarations made; plaintiffs succeed on Part 2 — defendants' counterclaim dismissed as to Part 2.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Possessory Title, Injunction, Trespass, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Land Law Limitation Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Possessory Title Injunction Trespass +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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

Land Dispute Adverse Possession and Possession Order / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants had factual possession of Part 2 before 3 August 2000
  2. 2 Whether the defendants had animus possidendi (intention to possess) in respect of Part 2 before 3 August 2000
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs' title to Part 1 was extinguished by section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had factual possession of Part 2 and the requisite intention to possess Part 2 before 3 August 2000. Consequently adverse possession of Part 2 was not established and plaintiffs are entitled to possession and related relief. The plaintiffs conceded Part 1, and the court declared plaintiffs' title to Part 1 extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance and that the 2nd defendant acquired possessory title to Part 1.

Court Disposition

Judgment: defendants succeed on Part 1 by plaintiffs' concession and declarations made; plaintiffs succeed on Part 2 — defendants' counterclaim dismissed as to Part 2.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiffs' title to Part 1 was prior to the commencement of the action extinguished by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance
  • Declaration that the 2nd defendant has acquired a possessory title to Part 1