GREAT CITY ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG MAY KUEN AND ANOTHER

GREAT CITY ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG MAY KUEN AND ANOTHER

The 2nd Defendant's proposed grounds of appeal are without reasonable prospect of success because the trial judge correctly found on contemporaneous documents, expert and factual evidence that the plaintiffs had factual possession (enclosure sufficed) and the requisite intention to possess; the proposed challenges merely re‑argue or dispute findings of fact which are not plainly wrong, therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2026] HKDC 637
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Great City Enterprises Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Kent Hoover International Limited; 1st Defendant: Wong May Kuen; 1st Defendant (sole Executrix): Tang Wai Han, Noel; 2nd Defendant: Leung Kee Investment Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 May 2026
Case Number
DCCJ3406/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal on the Papers
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Factual Possession, Intention to Possess, Leave to Appeal, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Real Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Factual Possession Intention to Possess Leave to Appeal Costs

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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great City Enterprises Limited

1st Plaintiff

Kent Hoover International Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Wong May Kuen

1st Defendant

Tang Wai Han, Noel

1st Defendant (sole Executrix)

Leung Kee Investment Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant has a reasonable prospect of success on an appeal
  2. 2 Whether enclosure/fencing alone establishes factual possession
  3. 3 Whether enclosure suffices to infer intention to possess or additional 'actual use' is required

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd Defendant's proposed grounds of appeal are without reasonable prospect of success because the trial judge correctly found on contemporaneous documents, expert and factual evidence that the plaintiffs had factual possession (enclosure sufficed) and the requisite intention to possess; the proposed challenges merely re‑argue or dispute findings of fact which are not plainly wrong, therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs order nisi that the 2nd Defendant pays the Plaintiffs' costs of this application, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate of counsel
  • Leave to appeal refused