CHAN YIU MAN AND OTHERS v. WONG HELEN MEE LING, the administratrix of the estate of WONG FOR CHUEN (黃火全) alias WONG FOA TSUN (黃火全), deceased AND ANOTHER

CHAN YIU MAN AND OTHERS v. WONG HELEN MEE LING, the administratrix of the estate of WONG FOR CHUEN (黃火全) alias WONG FOA TSUN (黃火全), deceased AND ANOTHER

On the uncontroverted evidence and expert surveys the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in exclusive and continuous possession of Lot 756 since 1970 with clear animus possidendi for over 20 years, thereby acquiring an indefeasible possessory title and resulting in extinguishment of the defendants' title under Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 s17.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 624
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHAN YIU MAN; 2nd Plaintiff: CHAN YIU HOI; 3rd Plaintiff: CHAN YIU CHEUNG; 1st Defendant: WONG HELEN MEE LING; 2nd Defendant: WONG YING FUK
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2021
Case Number
DCCJ1575/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Possessory Title (adverse Possession) / Judgment After Trial (defendants Absent)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs; declarations granted that plaintiffs acquired possessory title by adverse possession and defendants' title extinguished.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Possessory Title, Successive Squatters, Limitation Ordinance S17
Source Language
EN
Property Law Limitation Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Possessory Title Successive Squatters Limitation Ordinance S17

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

Parties

CHAN YIU MAN

1st Plaintiff

CHAN YIU HOI

2nd Plaintiff

CHAN YIU CHEUNG

3rd Plaintiff

WONG HELEN MEE LING

1st Defendant

WONG YING FUK

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Possessory Title (adverse Possession) / Judgment After Trial (defendants Absent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs acquired possessory title to Lot 756 by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether factual possession and animus possidendi were established continuously for the requisite 20 years
  3. 3 Whether successive squatters' possession could be aggregated to complete the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

On the uncontroverted evidence and expert surveys the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in exclusive and continuous possession of Lot 756 since 1970 with clear animus possidendi for over 20 years, thereby acquiring an indefeasible possessory title and resulting in extinguishment of the defendants' title under Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 s17.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs; declarations granted that plaintiffs acquired possessory title by adverse possession and defendants' title extinguished.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiffs together with their predecessors have since 1970 been in adverse possession of Lot 756 in Demarcation District No 82 for a continuous period exceeding 20 years prior to the commencement of this action and have thereby jointly acquired an indefeasible possessory title and/or right...
  • Declaration that the defendants' title to Lot 756 in Demarcation District No 82 or any part thereof has since 1990 been extinguished by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) and that the defendants have since 1990 lost their right to bring any action to recover the said Lot by virtue of section...