MAN TIN FOOK ALSO KNOWN AS MAN TIM FOOK, DECEASED, AS REPRESENTED BY MAN MAY YUNG UNDER O.15 R.15 RDC v. 梁根林AND ANOTHER

MAN TIN FOOK ALSO KNOWN AS MAN TIM FOOK, DECEASED, AS REPRESENTED BY MAN MAY YUNG UNDER O.15 R.15 RDC v. 梁根林AND ANOTHER

The applications were dismissed because the 2018 Lot Index Plan would not have altered the central credibility findings that the defendant's evidence was unreliable and did not discharge the burden of proving adverse possession, thereby failing the second and third Ladd v Marshall tests; further, the grounds of appeal did not present a reasonable prospect of success under s63A DCO.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 545
Parties
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Case Number
DCMP1214/2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Order 113 (land Dispute; Adverse Possession) / Post Judgment Applications for Leave to Appeal and to Adduce New Evidence
Outcome
Defendant's applications for leave to appeal and to adduce new evidence dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Leave to Appeal, Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall), Credibility Assessment, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Evidence Civil Procedure Appeal Adverse Possession Leave to Appeal Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall) Credibility Assessment +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Order 113 (land Dispute; Adverse Possession) / Post Judgment Applications for Leave to Appeal and to Adduce New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2018 Lot Index Plan is admissible fresh evidence on appeal under Ladd v Marshall
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a reasonable prospect of success for leave to appeal under s63A DCO
  3. 3 Whether the defendant proved adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were dismissed because the 2018 Lot Index Plan would not have altered the central credibility findings that the defendant's evidence was unreliable and did not discharge the burden of proving adverse possession, thereby failing the second and third Ladd v Marshall tests; further, the grounds of appeal did not present a reasonable prospect of success under s63A DCO.

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications for leave to appeal and to adduce new evidence dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's applications dismissed
  • Costs nisi: Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' costs of the two applications including certificate for counsel