TIERRA TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAND BASE LTD

TIERRA TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAND BASE LTD

Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving adverse possession because there was no cogent evidence that the Blue Area had been incorporated into defendant's land, no evidence plaintiffs discontinued or abandoned possession, no unequivocal acts excluding the world including the paper owner, and the 1955...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TIERRA TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAND BASE LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tierra Trading Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Keep Forever Development Limited; Defendant: Land Base Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 August 2017
Case Number
HCMP3074/2014
Procedural Posture
HCMP 3074/2014 Originating Summons (land Title/possession) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs. Declarations granted confirming plaintiffs' title to the Blue Area; defendants' rights of way over the Blue Area extinguished; vacant possession ordered; costs for plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Rights of Way, Limitation Period, Discontinuance/abandonment, Animus Possidendi, Declarations, Vacant Possession, Evidence/hearsay
Source Language
en
Property Law Land Law Limitation Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Rights of Way Limitation Period Discontinuance/abandonment +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tierra Trading Limited

1st Plaintiff

Keep Forever Development Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Land Base Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

HCMP 3074/2014 Originating Summons (land Title/possession) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant established adverse possession of the Blue Area (disputed staircase) within the relevant period (1992 to cut-off date 21 November 2002)
  2. 2 Whether the 1955 Assignment right of way precluded accrual of a cause of action until 1992
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs abandoned or discontinued possession of the Blue Area

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving adverse possession because there was no cogent evidence that the Blue Area had been incorporated into defendant's land, no evidence plaintiffs discontinued or abandoned possession, no unequivocal acts excluding the world including the paper owner, and the 1955 right of way and user by tenants did not amount to possession as of wrong; hearsay evidence lacking personal knowledge was inadmissible; accordingly plaintiffs are entitled to declarations, vacant possession and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs. Declarations granted confirming plaintiffs' title to the Blue Area; defendants' rights of way over the Blue Area extinguished; vacant possession ordered; costs for plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are co-owners of the Blue Area annexed to the 9 March 1955 Indenture (Memorial No.233459) forming part of Subsection 15 of Inland Lot No.2836
  • Declaration that any right of way over the Blue Area in favour of the defendant (Subsection 14) has been extinguished