LEE KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LI FOA SHANG

LEE KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LI FOA SHANG

On the pleadings the plaintiffs established successive exclusive possession of Lot 600 from about 1989 without interruption and satisfied the legal tests for adverse possession; the defendant's cause of action accrued before 1 July 1991 so the 20-year limitation applies under s38A and, by ss7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, the defendant's right of action and title are extinguished; substituted service was validly authorized and effected and judgment in default was properly entered; accordingly declaratory reliefs limited to the plaintiffs' possessory title and appropriately worded declarations were granted.

Citation
LEE KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LI FOA SHANG
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 April 2015
Case Number
DCCJ2165/2014
Procedural Posture
Adverse Possession; District Court Civil Action / Application for Default Judgment and Declaratory Relief (hearing in Chambers)
Outcome
Default judgment entered for the plaintiffs; declaratory reliefs granted in qualified terms; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Possessory Title, Declaratory Relief, Substituted Service, Default Judgment, Limitation Period
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Adverse Possession Possessory Title Declaratory Relief Substituted Service 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Adverse Possession; District Court Civil Action / Application for Default Judgment and Declaratory Relief (hearing in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' pleadings are sufficient to establish adverse possession of Lot 600 since about 1989
  2. 2 Whether it is appropriate to grant the declaratory reliefs sought in the absence of trial or evidence
  3. 3 Whether procedural requirements for substituted service and entry of default judgment have been satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleadings the plaintiffs established successive exclusive possession of Lot 600 from about 1989 without interruption and satisfied the legal tests for adverse possession; the defendant's cause of action accrued before 1 July 1991 so the 20-year limitation applies under s38A and, by ss7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, the defendant's right of action and title are extinguished; substituted service was validly authorized and effected and judgment in default was properly entered; accordingly declaratory reliefs limited to the plaintiffs' possessory title and appropriately worded declarations were granted.

Court Disposition

Default judgment entered for the plaintiffs; declaratory reliefs granted in qualified terms; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Judgment entered in default for the plaintiffs against the defendant
  • Declaration that the plaintiffs have been in adverse possession of Lot No. 600 in Demarcation District No. 180 for a period not less than 20 years prior to the commencement of this action (successive possession aggregated as pleaded)