MA WEINENG v. MA HOOK KWAN

MA WEINENG v. MA HOOK KWAN

The court held that on the facts (ousting in 1987, exclusive possession by predecessor and continued possession by successor) the defendant lost the right to bring any action under section 7(2) and consequently the defendant's title was extinguished and vested in the plaintiff under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance.

Citation
MA WEINENG v. MA HOOK KWAN
Parties
Successor of Co Owner; Sole Beneficiary and Exclusive Possessor: Plaintiff; Registered Tenant in Common (one of Two Equal Shares): Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Case Number
HCA2237/2011
Procedural Posture
Land Title / Declaration (limitation) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of the plaintiff: defendant has lost right to bring action under s7(2); defendant's title extinguished and vested in plaintiff under s17; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Joint Tenancy, Severance, Adverse Possession, Limitation Ordinance S7(2), Title Extinguishment S17
Source Language
EN
Property Law Limitation Law Joint Tenancy Severance Adverse Possession Limitation Ordinance S7(2) Title Extinguishment S17

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Successor of Co Owner; Sole Beneficiary and Exclusive Possessor

Defendant

Registered Tenant in Common (one of Two Equal Shares)

Procedural Posture

Land Title / Declaration (limitation) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has lost the right to recover his share or to bring any action to recover possession under section 7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance Cap 347
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's title has been extinguished and vested in the plaintiff under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance Cap 347

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that on the facts (ousting in 1987, exclusive possession by predecessor and continued possession by successor) the defendant lost the right to bring any action under section 7(2) and consequently the defendant's title was extinguished and vested in the plaintiff under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of the plaintiff: defendant has lost right to bring action under s7(2); defendant's title extinguished and vested in plaintiff under s17; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant has lost his right to bring any action against the plaintiff to recover his share or interest in the premises by virtue of section 7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347
  • Declaration that by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347 the title of the defendant has been extinguished in favour of the plaintiff