CIVIC LTD v. 余綺妙 AND OTHERS

CIVIC LTD v. 余綺妙 AND OTHERS

Defendants failed to discharge the legal burden to prove continuous adverse possession because the evidence established that occupation of the Land and house was permissive under licences (express and/or implied) given and maintained by the beneficial owners (as evidenced by repeated visits, communications,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CIVIC LTD v. 余綺妙 AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: Madam Yu; 2nd Defendant: All occupiers of the Land; 3rd Defendant: 6th Son; 4th Defendant: 1st Son
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 March 2014
Case Number
HCA225/2011
Procedural Posture
Action for Possession of Land, Trespass and Damages / Trial Judgment (deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for possession granted; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; claim for trespass damages dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Licence (permission), Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 (ss.7, 17), Animus Possidendi, Pleadings and Confession and Avoidance
Source Language
en
Property Law Limitation Civil Procedure Evidence Adverse Possession Licence (permission) Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 (ss.7,17) Animus Possidendi +1 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Madam Yu

1st Defendant

All occupiers of the Land

2nd Defendant

6th Son

3rd Defendant

1st Son

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action for Possession of Land, Trespass and Damages / Trial Judgment (deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants acquired possessory title by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether occupation was under licence/permission (express or implied) defeating adverse possession
  3. 3 Where the legal burden of proof lies for animus possidendi and licence

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to discharge the legal burden to prove continuous adverse possession because the evidence established that occupation of the Land and house was permissive under licences (express and/or implied) given and maintained by the beneficial owners (as evidenced by repeated visits, communications, tax/property returns and overt acts); unpleaded special defences attacking licence validity or termination could not be run at trial; accordingly plaintiff's title was not extinguished and possession ordered returned to plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for possession granted; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; claim for trespass damages dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants to deliver vacant possession of the Land and Hon House to the plaintiff
  • Counterclaim of the Relevant Defendants dismissed