HO MAN LAP v. HO KING KIU AND OTHERS

HO MAN LAP v. HO KING KIU AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal refused because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal; the trial judge reasonably preferred the plaintiff's surveyors and the deposited 2nd Survey Record Plan which had been accepted for deposit and incorporated into the Lot Index Plan; defendants did not produce a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HO MAN LAP v. HO KING KIU AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Ho Man Lap
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Case Number
HCMP1684/2013
Procedural Posture
Trespass to Land / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Boundary Dispute, Expert Evidence on Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Deposited Survey Plans
Source Language
en
Property Law Civil Procedure Land Survey Trespass Boundary Dispute Expert Evidence on Appeal Leave to Appeal Deposited Survey Plans

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho Man Lap

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Trespass to Land / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against findings of fact based on expert survey evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge improperly applied administrative survey policy or gave undue weight to a deposited survey record plan
  3. 3 Whether the reference points used in the plaintiff's correlation exercises were plainly wrong

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal; the trial judge reasonably preferred the plaintiff's surveyors and the deposited 2nd Survey Record Plan which had been accepted for deposit and incorporated into the Lot Index Plan; defendants did not produce a competing survey plan and failed to discharge the evidential burden to show the deposited plan was wrong; challenges to expert-based factual findings did not meet the high threshold required to overturn the judgment; damages award was supported by evidence disclosed at trial.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • No party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8)