GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CHAN YUNG KAN t/a LUK YAU YAU ORGANIC VEGETABLE AND OTHERS

GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CHAN YUNG KAN t/a LUK YAU YAU ORGANIC VEGETABLE AND OTHERS

On the balance of probabilities the Second Defendant's family had exclusive factual possession and the requisite animus from about 1960 such that by the time of registration and the 1993 proceedings they had long acquired adverse possession; the Plaintiff failed to enforce its 1993 judgment and, under the Limitation Ordinance 1991, cannot now enforce title; accordingly the action fails and relief is granted to the Defendants.

Citation
GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CHAN YUNG KAN t/a LUK YAU YAU ORGANIC VEGETABLE AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; First Defendant: Chan Yung Kan; Second Defendant: Ng Tung; Third Defendant: Wong Kin Min
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2013
Case Number
HCA558/2007
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute — Possession / Adverse Possession / Judgment at Trial (handed Down 18 October 2013)
Outcome
Judgment for Defendants; Plaintiff's action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Possession Recovery, Limitation Ordinance 1991, Default Judgment, Title Registration
Source Language
EN
Property Law Adverse Possession Limitation Law Civil Procedure Possession Recovery Limitation Ordinance 1991 Default Judgment Title Registration

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Chan Yung Kan

First Defendant

Ng Tung

Second Defendant

Wong Kin Min

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute — Possession / Adverse Possession / Judgment at Trial (handed Down 18 October 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants established factual possession of Lot 78
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants had animus possidendi (intention to possess)
  3. 3 Effect of the 1993 default judgment and whether it was enforceable given delay

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Second Defendant's family had exclusive factual possession and the requisite animus from about 1960 such that by the time of registration and the 1993 proceedings they had long acquired adverse possession; the Plaintiff failed to enforce its 1993 judgment and, under the Limitation Ordinance 1991, cannot now enforce title; accordingly the action fails and relief is granted to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Defendants; Plaintiff's action dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendants with costs to be taxed if not agreed
  • Declaration that the Second Defendant (and family) is entitled as adverse possessor to Lot 78