CHAN MEI LIN AND OTHERS v. LEE HONG

CHAN MEI LIN AND OTHERS v. LEE HONG

The plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession of the 1st Land or the 1997 instruction and acceptance by the defendant; the defendant had, on the evidence, effective exclusive possession from about 1977 (and in any event held title by assignment), the $50,000 payment was not shown to be contribution to legal costs for a Family claim, and the plaintiffs' factual case was insufficient; accordingly the plaintiffs' claims fail and the defendant is entitled to rely on his title/counterclaim and to costs.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2441
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Chan Mei Lin; 2nd Plaintiff: Lee Hok; 3rd Plaintiff: Lee Sze Hung; 4th Plaintiff: Li Hok Chuen (by Lee Tsun Frankie); 5th Plaintiff: Lee Tsun Frankie; Defendant / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Lee Hong
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 October 2018
Case Number
HCA2861/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute (land/title/adverse Possession) / Trial Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; defendant's title/counterclaim upheld; costs awarded to defendant
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Proprietary Estoppel, Agency, Tenancy in Common in Equity, Limitation, Title Dispute, Counterclaim for Trespass
Source Language
EN
Property Law Land Law Equity Trusts Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Proprietary Estoppel Agency +4 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Mei Lin

1st Plaintiff

Lee Hok

2nd Plaintiff

Lee Sze Hung

3rd Plaintiff

Li Hok Chuen (by Lee Tsun Frankie)

4th Plaintiff

Lee Tsun Frankie

5th Plaintiff

Lee Hong

Defendant / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute (land/title/adverse Possession) / Trial Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs (Father/Mother/Family) had adverse possession of the 1st Land
  2. 2 Whether the 1997 instruction was proved and whether defendant accepted an agency/trust obligation to hold the 1st Land for the Family
  3. 3 Whether the $50,000 payment by P5 to defendant was contribution to legal costs evidencing the instruction

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession of the 1st Land or the 1997 instruction and acceptance by the defendant; the defendant had, on the evidence, effective exclusive possession from about 1977 (and in any event held title by assignment), the $50,000 payment was not shown to be contribution to legal costs for a Family claim, and the plaintiffs' factual case was insufficient; accordingly the plaintiffs' claims fail and the defendant is entitled to rely on his title/counterclaim and to costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; defendant's title/counterclaim upheld; costs awarded to defendant

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
  • Defendant's counterclaim allowed/entitled to relief as pleaded