MAN KAI TAK v. 梁妹 AND OTHERS

MAN KAI TAK v. 梁妹 AND OTHERS

Defendants failed to prove exclusive factual possession and required intention to possess because their occupation was held to be pursuant to successive tenancies and licences (including the 1979 TA, unwritten yearly tenancies and the 2005 TA); adverse possession was not established; counterclaim dismissed; plaintiff entitled to vacant possession, damages at HK$600 per annum from 19 July 2010 until delivery, interest and costs.

Citation
MAN KAI TAK v. 梁妹 AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Man Kai Tak; 1st Defendant: 梁妹; 2nd Defendant: 梁根林; 3rd Defendant: 梁金水
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 February 2017
Case Number
DCCJ1806/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trespass and Adverse Possession / Judgment Trial (district Court)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for trespass upheld; counterclaim for adverse possession dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Trespass, Possessory Title, Tenancy and Licences, Limitation Period, Evidence and Credibility
Source Language
EN
Property Land Law Torts Civil Procedure Limitation Law Adverse Possession Trespass Possessory Title +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Man Kai Tak

Plaintiff

梁妹

1st Defendant

梁根林

2nd Defendant

梁金水

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trespass and Adverse Possession / Judgment Trial (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did defendants’ family first occupy the premises?
  2. 2 Whether occupation constituted tenancy/licence or adverse possession
  3. 3 Whether defendants acquired possessory title by 20 years adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to prove exclusive factual possession and required intention to possess because their occupation was held to be pursuant to successive tenancies and licences (including the 1979 TA, unwritten yearly tenancies and the 2005 TA); adverse possession was not established; counterclaim dismissed; plaintiff entitled to vacant possession, damages at HK$600 per annum from 19 July 2010 until delivery, interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for trespass upheld; counterclaim for adverse possession dismissed.

Orders

  • 2nd and 3rd defendants to give plaintiff vacant possession of Lot No.995 in Demarcation District No.102, Yuen Long, New Territories
  • 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay plaintiff damages at the annual rate of HK$600 from 19 July 2010 until date of delivery of vacant possession