FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD v. WING BO MOTOR CO(a firm)

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD v. WING BO MOTOR CO(a firm)

The applications were dismissed because the grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the documentary evidence was equivocal, the defendant failed to call the key witness to resolve inconsistencies, the burden to prove adverse possession lay on the defendant, and on the totality of evidence the 2002 tenancy was found to cover all houses and land; accordingly a stay was not warranted.

Citation
FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD v. WING BO MOTOR CO(a firm)
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 2013
Case Number
DCCJ3507/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Possession/landlord and Tenant / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution (interlocutory)
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal and for stay of execution dismissed
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Mesne Profits, Oral Tenancy, Adverse Possession, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Burden of Proof, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Land Law Property Tenancy Adverse Possession Civil Procedure Appeal Vacant Possession Mesne Profits +5 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Possession/landlord and Tenant / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2002 oral tenancy covered all houses and land occupied by defendant
  2. 2 Whether defendant had acquired adverse possession of Area A
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misapprehended or gave insufficient weight to documentary rental receipts

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were dismissed because the grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the documentary evidence was equivocal, the defendant failed to call the key witness to resolve inconsistencies, the burden to prove adverse possession lay on the defendant, and on the totality of evidence the 2002 tenancy was found to cover all houses and land; accordingly a stay was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal and for stay of execution dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's two summonses dated 17 April 2013 dismissed with costs, with certificate for counsel, summarily assessed at $66,519.00
  • Defendant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations