YAN WUN KWONG v. THE ESTATE OF HONG KING LOO alias LO KING HEUNG DECEASED

YAN WUN KWONG v. THE ESTATE OF HONG KING LOO alias LO KING HEUNG DECEASED

The court held that in the absence of any person representing the estate and no Defence filed the plaintiff was entitled to proceed and to default judgment; on the evidence the defendant's title to the Property was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap.347 and the plaintiff had been in adverse possession for over 20 years and thus acquired an indefeasible possessory title, and declaratory relief was properly grantable.

Citation
YAN WUN KWONG v. THE ESTATE OF HONG KING LOO alias LO KING HEUNG DECEASED
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant (deceased)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2011
Case Number
DCCJ5370/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Property Dispute (adverse Possession) / Default Judgment Hearing/decision
Outcome
Judgment entered for plaintiff; declarations granted; action to proceed in absence of estate representative.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Indefeasible Possessory Title, Extinguishment of Title Under Limitation Statute, Default Judgment, Declaratory Relief
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Land Law Limitation Law Adverse Possession Indefeasible Possessory Title Extinguishment of Title Under Limitation Statute Default Judgment +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant (deceased)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Property Dispute (adverse Possession) / Default Judgment Hearing/decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action may proceed in the absence of any person representing the estate of the deceased defendant under Order 15, rule 15 of the Rules of the District Court
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to default judgment under Order 19, rule 7 in default of a Defence
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's title to the Property has been extinguished by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap.347

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that in the absence of any person representing the estate and no Defence filed the plaintiff was entitled to proceed and to default judgment; on the evidence the defendant's title to the Property was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap.347 and the plaintiff had been in adverse possession for over 20 years and thus acquired an indefeasible possessory title, and declaratory relief was properly grantable.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for plaintiff; declarations granted; action to proceed in absence of estate representative.

Orders

  • Action to proceed in the absence of any person representing the estate of the deceased defendant.
  • Judgment entered against the defendant declaring that the defendant's title to the Property has been extinguished by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap.347.