LAI CHI KOK AMUSEMENT PARK COMPANY LTD v. 梁振生 AND OTHERS

LAI CHI KOK AMUSEMENT PARK COMPANY LTD v. 梁振生 AND OTHERS

The 2nd defendant established exclusive factual possession and animus possidendi of the disputed plots over a continuous period extending decades (in excess of the statutory limitation period), thereby extinguishing the plaintiffs' claims under the Limitation Ordinance; the 1st defendant's adverse possession claim failed for lack of credibility and evidence.

Citation
LAI CHI KOK AMUSEMENT PARK COMPANY LTD v. 梁振生 AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Cornhill Enterprises Limited; Plaintiff: Lai Chi Kok Amusement Park Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Leung Chun Sang; 2nd Defendant: Wong Cheong Bun
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Case Number
HCMP2038/2009
Procedural Posture
Possession (summary Proceedings Under Order 113, Rules of the High Court) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims for possession dismissed; 2nd defendant succeeds on amended counterclaim establishing adverse possession; 1st defendant's defence and counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Possession Claims, Limitation Ordinance (time Bar), Evidence (aerial Photography and Surveyors)
Source Language
EN
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Adverse Possession Possession Claims Limitation Ordinance (time Bar) Evidence (aerial Photography and Surveyors)

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornhill Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff

Lai Chi Kok Amusement Park Company Limited

Plaintiff

Leung Chun Sang

1st Defendant

Wong Cheong Bun

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession (summary Proceedings Under Order 113, Rules of the High Court) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants established adverse possession of the disputed plots
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs' registered title was extinguished or barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant had locus and credible evidence for adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd defendant established exclusive factual possession and animus possidendi of the disputed plots over a continuous period extending decades (in excess of the statutory limitation period), thereby extinguishing the plaintiffs' claims under the Limitation Ordinance; the 1st defendant's adverse possession claim failed for lack of credibility and evidence.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims for possession dismissed; 2nd defendant succeeds on amended counterclaim establishing adverse possession; 1st defendant's defence and counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs\' claims for possession of the subject plots are dismissed.
  • Declare that the 2nd defendant has acquired title by adverse possession to the disputed plots (Lot Nos. 1232, 1234, 1236, 1237, 1239, 1242 and 1243).