LAI SIU WAI LOUIS v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS

LAI SIU WAI LOUIS v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS

The court held that the pleadings alleged deprivation of possession of the piece of land from 13 August 2011 onwards and that the security room and other erections were fixtures forming part of the land; accordingly the defendants were in wrongful possession and the striking-out application under Order 18 rule 19 failed.

Citation
LAI SIU WAI LOUIS v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: 1st Defendant; Defendant: 2nd Defendant; Defendant: 3rd Defendant Lam Shu Kee; Defendant: 4th Defendant Ko Kim Fung Jacob
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 April 2012
Case Number
DCCJ4041/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trespass/possession (district Court) / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim (order 18 Rule 19) Decision in Chambers
Outcome
Striking-out application by 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Wrongful Possession, Fixtures, Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19
Source Language
EN
Property Law Tort Civil Procedure Trespass Wrongful Possession Fixtures Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

Defendant

2nd Defendant

Defendant

3rd Defendant Lam Shu Kee

Defendant

4th Defendant Ko Kim Fung Jacob

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trespass/possession (district Court) / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim (order 18 Rule 19) Decision in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was deprived of possession of the land and therefore entitled to relief
  2. 2 Whether the security room and other erections/facilities are fixtures and part of the land
  3. 3 Whether the statement of claim should be struck out under Order 18 rule 19

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pleadings alleged deprivation of possession of the piece of land from 13 August 2011 onwards and that the security room and other erections were fixtures forming part of the land; accordingly the defendants were in wrongful possession and the striking-out application under Order 18 rule 19 failed.

Court Disposition

Striking-out application by 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants dismissed

Orders

  • Striking-out application dismissed
  • Costs to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel