DRAGON SKY PROPERTY LTD v. YEUNG MEI HOI AND ANOTHER

DRAGON SKY PROPERTY LTD v. YEUNG MEI HOI AND ANOTHER

The 1st defendant failed to prove the requisite intention to possess and continuous exclusive physical possession for 20 years. His self-serving assertions that possession passed in 1983 were contradicted by documentary evidence (records, tenancy in mother's name, father's receipt of ex‑gratia payment, utility accounts) and lacked corroboration; there was no valid gift in 1983 nor delivery. Government survey sheets, updated by official procedure, were more reliable than aerial photographs and showed fencing only about 2010–2011. Accordingly the counterclaim for adverse possession is dismissed and possession is awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
DRAGON SKY PROPERTY LTD v. YEUNG MEI HOI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 2014
Case Number
DCMP370/2012
Procedural Posture
Possession (adverse Possession) / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Counterclaim dismissed; judgment for plaintiff for possession, mesne profits and injunction; costs to plaintiff against 1st defendant; no order as to costs against 2nd defendant
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Possession Order, Mesne Profits, Injunction, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Possession Order Mesne Profits Injunction Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession (adverse Possession) / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant had the requisite intention to possess (animus possidendi) for 20 years
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant had factual/physical possession of the Property for 20 years
  3. 3 Whether successive squatter principle operated to aggregate parents' possession with 1st defendant's

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant failed to prove the requisite intention to possess and continuous exclusive physical possession for 20 years. His self-serving assertions that possession passed in 1983 were contradicted by documentary evidence (records, tenancy in mother's name, father's receipt of ex‑gratia payment, utility accounts) and lacked corroboration; there was no valid gift in 1983 nor delivery. Government survey sheets, updated by official procedure, were more reliable than aerial photographs and showed fencing only about 2010–2011. Accordingly the counterclaim for adverse possession is dismissed and possession is awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim dismissed; judgment for plaintiff for possession, mesne profits and injunction; costs to plaintiff against 1st defendant; no order as to costs against 2nd defendant

Orders

  • Counterclaim of 1st defendant dismissed
  • Order for possession in favour of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant