何幹業 對 麥興龍及另二人

何幹業 對 麥興龍及另二人

The applications were dismissed because the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no other reason in the interests of justice to justify leave; their merits were assessed and found lacking (including adverse credibility findings against the third defendant), the out-of-time applications presented no substantive grounds to vary the costs order and inability to pay is not a proper basis to evade costs; therefore no extension or stay was warranted and costs orders were enforced immediately.

Citation
何幹業 對 麥興龍及另二人
Parties
Plaintiff: HO, STEPHEN KON IP; First Defendant: MAK, HING LUNG; Second Defendant: UNKNOWN OCCUPIERS; Third Defendant: CHEUNG HANG PING
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Case Number
DCMP3210/2013
Procedural Posture
Possession/land Claim Under Order 113 and Related District Court Rules / Post Trial Applications for Variation of Costs Order, Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
All applications by first and third defendants dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession, Adverse Possession, Leave to Appeal, Variation of Costs Order, Extension of Time, Costs Assessment, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
CH
Land Law Civil Procedure Costs Possession Adverse Possession Leave to Appeal Variation of Costs Order Extension of Time +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HO, STEPHEN KON IP

Plaintiff

MAK, HING LUNG

First Defendant

UNKNOWN OCCUPIERS

Second Defendant

CHEUNG HANG PING

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession/land Claim Under Order 113 and Related District Court Rules / Post Trial Applications for Variation of Costs Order, Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution (suspension of the possession order) should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the costs order should be varied or set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were dismissed because the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no other reason in the interests of justice to justify leave; their merits were assessed and found lacking (including adverse credibility findings against the third defendant), the out-of-time applications presented no substantive grounds to vary the costs order and inability to pay is not a proper basis to evade costs; therefore no extension or stay was warranted and costs orders were enforced immediately.

Court Disposition

All applications by first and third defendants dismissed

Orders

  • All three summonses filed by the first and third defendants are dismissed.
  • First defendant to pay plaintiff's costs for these applications assessed immediately at HK$6,300, with a barrister's certificate.