TSANG KUN KAU AND ANOTHER v. YU YING AND OTHERS

TSANG KUN KAU AND ANOTHER v. YU YING AND OTHERS

Leave refused because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's factual findings on fencing, factual possession and intention were supported by evidence and entitled to deference and were not plainly wrong; the licence point was unpleaded, would have caused prejudice and did not constitute an arguable basis to overturn the judgment; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs ordered.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 1278
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tsang Kun Kau; 2nd Plaintiff: Lo Chin Pang; 1st Defendant: Yu Ying; 2nd Defendant: All occupiers of Lot No. 93 in Demarcation District No. 454
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 August 2024
Case Number
DCMP2335/2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Adverse Possession / Leave to Appeal Application (district Court)
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Animus Possidendi, Factual Possession, Leave to Appeal, Licence/licensing Issue, Credibility of Witnesses, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Adverse Possession Animus Possidendi Factual Possession Leave to Appeal Licence/licensing Issue +2 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang Kun Kau

1st Plaintiff

Lo Chin Pang

2nd Plaintiff

Yu Ying

1st Defendant

All occupiers of Lot No. 93 in Demarcation District No. 454

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings Adverse Possession / Leave to Appeal Application (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed appeal has a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) District Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's factual findings on fencing and factual possession were plainly wrong
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge correctly assessed animus possidendi (intention to possess)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's factual findings on fencing, factual possession and intention were supported by evidence and entitled to deference and were not plainly wrong; the licence point was unpleaded, would have caused prejudice and did not constitute an arguable basis to overturn the judgment; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs ordered.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Costs order nisi: plaintiffs to pay 1st defendant's costs to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel