CHAN KWEI CHEE v. THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR AND OTHERS

CHAN KWEI CHEE v. THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR AND OTHERS

The plaintiff had continuous factual possession and the necessary animus possidendi of the 1st defendant's lot and house from 1955 to February 1983; accordingly the 1st defendant's title was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance.

Citation
CHAN KWEI CHEE v. THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (sole Executrix of Estate of CHAN KAM Yung): CHAN KWEI CHEE; 1st Defendant (representing the Estate of CHAN YUNG Fat): THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR; 2nd Defendant: CHAN TUNG; 3rd Defendant: CHUNG TUNG WAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 February 2008
Case Number
HCMP1444/1991
Procedural Posture
Adverse Possession / Limitation Ordinance Claim (title Extinguishment) / Judgment at First Instance (chambers)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff: declaration of adverse possession and extinguishment of 1st defendant's title; costs ordered against plaintiff to Official Solicitor on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Extinguishment of Title, Limitation Period, Factual Possession, Animus Possidendi, Costs Indemnity
Source Language
EN
Property Law Adverse Possession Limitation Ordinance (cap. 347) Civil Procedure Extinguishment of Title Limitation Period Factual Possession Animus Possidendi +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN KWEI CHEE

Plaintiff (sole Executrix of Estate of CHAN KAM Yung)

THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR

1st Defendant (representing the Estate of CHAN YUNG Fat)

CHAN TUNG

2nd Defendant

CHUNG TUNG WAN

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Adverse Possession / Limitation Ordinance Claim (title Extinguishment) / Judgment at First Instance (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff had been in adverse possession of the 1st defendant's lot from 1955 to Feb 1983
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant's title was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap.347
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff should pay the Official Solicitor's costs on an indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had continuous factual possession and the necessary animus possidendi of the 1st defendant's lot and house from 1955 to February 1983; accordingly the 1st defendant's title was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff: declaration of adverse possession and extinguishment of 1st defendant's title; costs ordered against plaintiff to Official Solicitor on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiff had been in adverse possession of the 1st defendant's lot and the house thereon from 1955 until February 1983.
  • Declaration that the title of the 1st defendant and his successors in title, if any, to the said lot and house had been extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap.347.