CENTURY ASIA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN HAU MAN AND OTHERS

CENTURY ASIA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN HAU MAN AND OTHERS

Summary judgment was granted because the 1st defendant’s asserted tenancies and estoppel arguments relied on unregistered or inadmissible instruments and contained material inconsistencies rendering his evidence not reasonably capable of belief; the Land Registration Ordinance nullified the asserted long leases against the plaintiff as registered owner; unrelated adverse possession proceedings did not defeat the plaintiff’s right to seek possession; therefore no real or bona fide defence existed.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 1453
Parties
Plaintiff: CENTURY ASIA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CHAN HAU MAN; 2nd Defendant: CHUNG SUI LOI; 3rd Defendant: ALL OCCUPIER(S) of Lot No.599 in Demarcation District No.125; 4th Defendant: ALL OCCUPIER(S) of Section A of Lot No.600 in Demarcation District No.125
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 September 2024
Case Number
DCMP2516/2022
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim Under Order 113 / Converted to Writ / Application for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications (de Bene Esse Evidential Affidavits Considered); Defence and Counterclaim Struck Out
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff; Defence and Counterclaim struck out; costs ordered nisi to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Proprietary Estoppel, Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Trespass, Possession
Source Language
EN
Property Land Law Civil Procedure Equity Summary Judgment Proprietary Estoppel Adverse Possession Land Registration +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CENTURY ASIA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff

CHAN HAU MAN

1st Defendant

CHUNG SUI LOI

2nd Defendant

ALL OCCUPIER(S) of Lot No.599 in Demarcation District No.125

3rd Defendant

ALL OCCUPIER(S) of Section A of Lot No.600 in Demarcation District No.125

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim Under Order 113 / Converted to Writ / Application for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications (de Bene Esse Evidential Affidavits Considered); Defence and Counterclaim Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment is appropriate after conversion of originating summons to writ
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant has a real or bona fide defence to defeat summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether unregistered tenancy instruments bind a subsequent bona fide purchaser under the Land Registration Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was granted because the 1st defendant’s asserted tenancies and estoppel arguments relied on unregistered or inadmissible instruments and contained material inconsistencies rendering his evidence not reasonably capable of belief; the Land Registration Ordinance nullified the asserted long leases against the plaintiff as registered owner; unrelated adverse possession proceedings did not defeat the plaintiff’s right to seek possession; therefore no real or bona fide defence existed.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff; Defence and Counterclaim struck out; costs ordered nisi to plaintiff

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted for plaintiff in terms of Prayers (1)–(19) in the Statement of Claim
  • Mense profits (Prayer 7), damages (Prayer 8), account of profits (Prayer 9), consequential accounts (Prayer 12) and interest (Prayer 13) to be assessed