CHAN KIT v. YAU YIK WAH AND ANOTHER

CHAN KIT v. YAU YIK WAH AND ANOTHER

The Plaintiff failed to prove a title extinguished by limitation because his possession was asserted 'as of right' (based on purchase) and prior proceedings (1979 action) intervened; although the court found the Plaintiff had possession of 22A from 1967 to demolition and that 22A partly rested on Lot 286, there was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHAN KIT v. YAU YIK WAH AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Chan Kit; 1st Defendant: Yau Yik Wah; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Sik Ching
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2004
Case Number
HCA4259/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Adverse Possession and Related Tort Claims / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Partial judgment for Plaintiff on damages but claim for declaration that 1st Defendant's title was extinguished by limitation refused
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Ordinance, Possession, Demolition, Damages, Conversion
Source Language
en
Property Law Limitation Law Torts Land Law Adverse Possession Limitation Ordinance Possession Demolition +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Kit

Plaintiff

Yau Yik Wah

1st Defendant

Cheung Sik Ching

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Adverse Possession and Related Tort Claims / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff had acquired title by adverse possession to part of Lot 286
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff abandoned possession of 22A and when
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration extinguishing the 1st Defendant's title under the Limitation Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to prove a title extinguished by limitation because his possession was asserted 'as of right' (based on purchase) and prior proceedings (1979 action) intervened; although the court found the Plaintiff had possession of 22A from 1967 to demolition and that 22A partly rested on Lot 286, there was insufficient proof of the precise portion and no adverse possession extinguishing the 1st Defendant's paper title, so the declaration sought was refused; limited damages were awarded for sentimental and residual loss only.

Court Disposition

Partial judgment for Plaintiff on damages but claim for declaration that 1st Defendant's title was extinguished by limitation refused

Orders

  • Plaintiff's declaration that the 1st Defendant's title in the Land was extinguished by limitation refused
  • Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of HKD 110000 jointly and severally against the 1st and 2nd Defendants