TAM WING CHUNG v. U HA MIN also known as TAM MAN

TAM WING CHUNG v. U HA MIN also known as TAM MAN

On the evidence (uncontested because defendant did not respond) plaintiff established continuous factual possession and an intention to exclude the true owner for over 12 years prior to commencement of proceedings; accordingly the defendant's paper title was extinguished under s17 Limitation Ordinance and plaintiff acquired possessory title, but possessory title does not entitle automatic registration.

Citation
TAM WING CHUNG v. U HA MIN also known as TAM MAN
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 April 2017
Case Number
HCA1598/2014
Procedural Posture
Adverse Possession / Declaratory Relief / Hearing on Summons for Default Judgment (default by Defendant)
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of plaintiff; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Possessory Title, Substituted Service, Limitation Ordinance S17, Default Judgment
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Adverse Possession Possessory Title Substituted Service Limitation Ordinance S17 Default Judgment

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Adverse Possession / Declaratory Relief / Hearing on Summons for Default Judgment (default by Defendant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff had been in continuous adverse possession for at least 12 years prior to the claim
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's paper title was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance Cap 347
  3. 3 Whether substituted service effected on defendant in Myanmar was effective for default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence (uncontested because defendant did not respond) plaintiff established continuous factual possession and an intention to exclude the true owner for over 12 years prior to commencement of proceedings; accordingly the defendant's paper title was extinguished under s17 Limitation Ordinance and plaintiff acquired possessory title, but possessory title does not entitle automatic registration.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of plaintiff; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Declaration that defendant's title, interest and/or rights in and/or over the premises have been absolutely extinguished by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance Cap 347.
  • Declaration that plaintiff has been in adverse possession of the premises for a period of no less than 12 years prior to commencement of the action and has thereby acquired possessory title.