MAN LIN HEUNG THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MAN KWAI YIN ALSO KNOWN AS MAN KWAI YIN v. 梁根林 AND ANOTHER

MAN LIN HEUNG THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MAN KWAI YIN ALSO KNOWN AS MAN KWAI YIN v. 梁根林 AND ANOTHER

The 2018 Lot Index Plan did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria because it would not probably have important influence on the result: it could not displace the trial judge's adverse credibility findings nor change the fact that experts relied on survey sheets and aerial photos rather than lot index plans; consequently the new evidence application failed and, applying s63A DCO, the proposed grounds of appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success, so leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 544
Parties
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: Man Lin Heung
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Case Number
DCMP1213/2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Order 113, District Court / 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, New Evidence on Appeal, Witness Credibility, Survey Evidence and Lot Plans, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Appeals Adverse Possession Leave to Appeal New Evidence on Appeal Witness Credibility +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

Man Lin Heung

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Order 113, District Court / Post‑judgment Applications for Leave to Appeal and to Adduce New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2018 Lot Index Plan constitutes admissible fresh evidence on appeal under Ladd v Marshall
  2. 2 Whether the fresh evidence would probably have important influence on outcome
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal under section 63A DCO

Ratio Decidendi

The 2018 Lot Index Plan did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria because it would not probably have important influence on the result: it could not displace the trial judge's adverse credibility findings nor change the fact that experts relied on survey sheets and aerial photos rather than lot index plans; consequently the new evidence application failed and, applying s63A DCO, the proposed grounds of appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success, so leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Defendant's application for leave to adduce new evidence dismissed
  • Defendant's application for leave to appeal dismissed