CORNHILL ENTERPRISES LTD 對 詹士平及另一人

CORNHILL ENTERPRISES LTD 對 詹士平及另一人

The court granted a one‑day extension of time but refused to admit the late affidavit because it failed the Ladd v Marshall criteria and amounted to evidence that could have been obtained earlier; the defendant showed no real prospect of success on the merits because he had no title, failed to establish when occupation began and thus could not prove adverse possession for the requisite period; accordingly the appeal against the hearing officer's order was dismissed and the hearing officer's order was upheld with costs to the plaintiff.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 351
Parties
Plaintiff: Cornhill Enterprises Limited; First Defendant: Chim Sze Ping; Second Defendant: Persons in occupation of Kau Wa Keng New Village 33G
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2024
Case Number
DCMP3246/2021
Procedural Posture
Summary Proceedings for Possession Under Order 113 of the Rules of the District Court / Appeal Against Hearing Officer's Order (re‑hearing of Registrar's Decision; Application for Extension of Time and Admission of Further Evidence)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; registrar/hearing officer's order upheld
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Default Judgment, Rehearing on Appeal From Hearing Officer, Summary Possession, Limitation
Source Language
CH
Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Costs Extension of Time Admission of Fresh Evidence Default Judgment Rehearing on Appeal From Hearing Officer +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 7 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornhill Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff

Chim Sze Ping

First Defendant

Persons in occupation of Kau Wa Keng New Village 33G

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Proceedings for Possession Under Order 113 of the Rules of the District Court / Appeal Against Hearing Officer's Order (re‑hearing of Registrar's Decision; Application for Extension of Time and Admission of Further Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend the 14‑day time limit for appeal (one day late)
  2. 2 Whether to admit fresh evidence/affidavit filed on appeal under the Ladd v Marshall test
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has a real prospect of success to set aside a default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted a one‑day extension of time but refused to admit the late affidavit because it failed the Ladd v Marshall criteria and amounted to evidence that could have been obtained earlier; the defendant showed no real prospect of success on the merits because he had no title, failed to establish when occupation began and thus could not prove adverse possession for the requisite period; accordingly the appeal against the hearing officer's order was dismissed and the hearing officer's order was upheld with costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; registrar/hearing officer's order upheld

Orders

  • The first defendant's appeal is dismissed and the hearing officer's order of 31 August 2023 is affirmed
  • Extension of time to file the appeal granted (one day) but without effect on disposition