LAI CHI KOK AMUSEMENT PARK COMPANY LTD v. 王昌彬

LAI CHI KOK AMUSEMENT PARK COMPANY LTD v. 王昌彬

On the facts the 2nd defendant demonstrated continuous factual possession and animus possidendi over the disputed plots for decades such that adverse possession was established and the plaintiffs' registered title was barred by the Limitation Ordinance; the 1st defendant failed to prove adverse possession and his claims were dismissed.

Citation
LAI CHI KOK AMUSEMENT PARK COMPANY LTD v. 王昌彬
Parties
Plaintiff: Cornhill Enterprises Limited; Plaintiff: Lai Chi Kok Amusement Park Company Limited; Defendant (1st): Leung Chun Sang (梁振生); Defendant (2nd): Wong Cheong Bun (王昌彬); 3rd Defendant: The Occupier(s) of the Remaining Portions of Lots 1232, 1234, 1236, 1237 and Lot 1239 etc
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Case Number
HCMP2039/2009
Procedural Posture
Summary Proceedings for Possession Under Order 113 of the Rules of the High Court (consolidated HCMP 2037/2009, 2038/2009, 2039/2009) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed in respect of plots occupied by the 2nd defendant; 2nd defendant's amended counterclaim allowed; 1st defendant's defence and counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Factual Possession, Animus Possidendi, Limitation Ordinance (prescription), Survey and Aerial Photographic Evidence, Possession Disputes
Source Language
EN
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Adverse Possession Factual Possession Animus Possidendi Limitation Ordinance (prescription) +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornhill Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff

Lai Chi Kok Amusement Park Company Limited

Plaintiff

Leung Chun Sang (梁振生)

Defendant (1st)

Wong Cheong Bun (王昌彬)

Defendant (2nd)

The Occupier(s) of the Remaining Portions of Lots 1232, 1234, 1236, 1237 and Lot 1239 etc

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Proceedings for Possession Under Order 113 of the Rules of the High Court (consolidated HCMP 2037/2009, 2038/2009, 2039/2009) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant proved adverse possession of the disputed plots for the requisite period
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant proved adverse possession
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' registered title and lack of manifest acts of ownership defeated the adverse possession claim

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the 2nd defendant demonstrated continuous factual possession and animus possidendi over the disputed plots for decades such that adverse possession was established and the plaintiffs' registered title was barred by the Limitation Ordinance; the 1st defendant failed to prove adverse possession and his claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed in respect of plots occupied by the 2nd defendant; 2nd defendant's amended counterclaim allowed; 1st defendant's defence and counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The 2nd defendant is entitled to the declarations and orders sought in the Amended Counterclaim.
  • The 1st defendant's defence and counterclaim are dismissed.