WONG SHING TIT v. FUK WAH LAM AND OTHERS

WONG SHING TIT v. FUK WAH LAM AND OTHERS

The plaintiff failed to prove factual possession and the requisite animus for the whole disputed land for the requisite limitation period: occupation was limited to residence in some structures and partial farming that ceased in 1990, there was no effective enclosure or other overt acts to exclude others, evidence of cultivation by others and social welfare records undermined plaintiff's account, therefore adverse possession was not established and the claim was dismissed.

Citation
WONG SHING TIT v. FUK WAH LAM AND OTHERS
Parties
Defendant: D1; Defendant: D2; Defendant: D3; Defendant: D4; Defendant: D5
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 2015
Case Number
DCCJ1385/2010
Procedural Posture
Adverse Possession (possessory Title) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession, Animus Possidendi, Limitation Period, Enclosure and Fencing, Credibility of Witnesses, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Adverse Possession Limitation Civil Evidence and Procedure Experts and Witness Duty Possession Animus Possidendi Limitation Period +3 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D1

Defendant

D2

Defendant

D3

Defendant

D4

Defendant

D5

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Adverse Possession (possessory Title) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff acquired possession of the disputed land since 1981
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had the requisite intention to possess (animus possidendi)
  3. 3 Whether proceedings against D5 should be stayed pending proper service/representation

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove factual possession and the requisite animus for the whole disputed land for the requisite limitation period: occupation was limited to residence in some structures and partial farming that ceased in 1990, there was no effective enclosure or other overt acts to exclude others, evidence of cultivation by others and social welfare records undermined plaintiff's account, therefore adverse possession was not established and the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Costs shall follow the event
  • Order nisi that the plaintiff shall pay the costs of D1 to D3 with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed