TANG CHING v. WU WAN YAU AND ANOTHER

TANG CHING v. WU WAN YAU AND ANOTHER

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had exclusive and continuous possession with the required animus from 1976; evidence shows a tenancy continued until about 1989 and active steps by the owners and developers thereafter, so adverse possession, if it began, could only have started...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TANG CHING v. WU WAN YAU AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendants: Defendants (registered owners, Wu family)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Case Number
HCA795/2010
Procedural Posture
Adverse Possession; Declaration of Title / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendants' counterclaim to vacate writ succeeded
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Animus Possidendi, Statutory Limitation Period, Tenancy Termination, Evidentiary Credibility
Source Language
en
Property Law Limitation Law Landlord and Tenant Law Evidence Adverse Possession Animus Possidendi Statutory Limitation Period Tenancy Termination +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendants (registered owners, Wu family)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Adverse Possession; Declaration of Title / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was in exclusive and continuous possession for 20 years from 1976 to 1996
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff possessed the necessary animus possidendi to dispossess the registered owners
  3. 3 Effect of Limitation Ordinance amendment (s38A) on the applicable limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had exclusive and continuous possession with the required animus from 1976; evidence shows a tenancy continued until about 1989 and active steps by the owners and developers thereafter, so adverse possession, if it began, could only have started in 1989 and the 20-year period necessary for title had not been satisfied; claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendants' counterclaim to vacate writ succeeded

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with costs to the defendants
  • Order vacating the Writ dated 29 May 2010 from registration (paragraph (i) of defendants' counterclaim)