CHEUNG SOON CHUNG v. THE OCCUPANT(S) of Lot No. 452 in D.D. 87 AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG SOON CHUNG v. THE OCCUPANT(S) of Lot No. 452 in D.D. 87 AND ANOTHER

Defendant failed to prove continuous exclusive possession with animus possidendi for the applicable 20‑year period because objective aerial and survey evidence contradicted his evidence of long‑standing enclosure and continuous occupation and there was abandonment around 2004–2007; consequently plaintiff retains...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 46
Parties
Plaintiff: Cheung Soon Chung; 1st Defendant: The Occupant(s) of Lot No. 452 in D.D. 87; 2nd Defendant: Ng Hung Yin
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Case Number
DCMP2702/2017
Procedural Posture
Land Possession Dispute (adverse Possession) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Vacant Possession, Mesne Profits, Limitation Ordinance S7(2) and S17, Fencing and Enclosure as Evidence, Costs and Interest
Source Language
en
Property Law Adverse Possession Limitation Law Civil Procedure Vacant Possession Mesne Profits Limitation Ordinance S7(2) and S17 Fencing and Enclosure as Evidence +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Soon Chung

Plaintiff

The Occupant(s) of Lot No. 452 in D.D. 87

1st Defendant

Ng Hung Yin

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Possession Dispute (adverse Possession) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant acquired title to Lot 452 by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether possession was continuous and accompanied by animus possidendi for the applicable limitation period
  3. 3 Whether there was abandonment breaking continuity between 2004 and 2007

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to prove continuous exclusive possession with animus possidendi for the applicable 20‑year period because objective aerial and survey evidence contradicted his evidence of long‑standing enclosure and continuous occupation and there was abandonment around 2004–2007; consequently plaintiff retains title and is entitled to vacant possession, agreed mesne profits and costs; counterclaim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Vacant possession of Lot 452 in D.D. 87 awarded to the plaintiff
  • Judgment for mesne profits in the agreed lump sum of $885,200