CHAU YAN CHI CATHERINE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FUNG WAH FACTORIAL BUILDING

CHAU YAN CHI CATHERINE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FUNG WAH FACTORIAL BUILDING

On the pleadings the plaintiff demonstrated continuous exclusive possession (by predecessor from c.1960 and by plaintiff since 1989), satisfying factual possession and intention to possess; the limitation period has expired so the defendant's right of action and title are extinguished under ss 7(2) and 17 Limitation Ordinance; accordingly default judgment declaring extinguishment of title and transfer of rights to plaintiff is appropriate despite absence of trial.

Citation
CHAU YAN CHI CATHERINE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FUNG WAH FACTORIAL BUILDING
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Case Number
DCCJ1459/2014
Procedural Posture
Adverse Possession / Possessory Title / Application for Default Judgment (order 19 R 7 Rdc)
Outcome
Default judgment entered for plaintiff. Declarations made that defendant has lost right to recover the land shaded on the plan and defendant's title is extinguished in favour of the plaintiff. Costs awarded to plaintiff with certificate for counsel.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Period, Default Judgment, Possessory Title, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Limitation Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation Period Default Judgment Possessory Title 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Adverse Possession / Possessory Title / Application for Default Judgment (order 19 R 7 Rdc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be entered against a defendant in default
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has established adverse possession sufficient to extinguish the defendant's title under the Limitation Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the limitation period has run such that the defendant's right of action and title are extinguished

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleadings the plaintiff demonstrated continuous exclusive possession (by predecessor from c.1960 and by plaintiff since 1989), satisfying factual possession and intention to possess; the limitation period has expired so the defendant's right of action and title are extinguished under ss 7(2) and 17 Limitation Ordinance; accordingly default judgment declaring extinguishment of title and transfer of rights to plaintiff is appropriate despite absence of trial.

Court Disposition

Default judgment entered for plaintiff. Declarations made that defendant has lost right to recover the land shaded on the plan and defendant's title is extinguished in favour of the plaintiff. Costs awarded to plaintiff with certificate for counsel.

Orders

  • Declaration that defendant has lost its right to bring any action to recover the land shaded green on the plan by virtue of section 7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance Cap. 347.
  • Declaration that by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance Cap. 347 the title of the defendant has been extinguished in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has acquired all rights, title and interest including ownership and exclusive possession of the land shaded green on the plan.