POWERFUL BEST LTD v. LAM YUK KUI AND ANOTHER

POWERFUL BEST LTD v. LAM YUK KUI AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal dismissed because defendants only had non-exclusive permission (not adverse possession), lacked any interest in land to support an easement, and their late, unsworn assertions about toilet access did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria; accordingly the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
POWERFUL BEST LTD v. LAM YUK KUI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Powerful Best Limited; 1st Defendant: Lam Yuk Kui; 2nd Defendant: Chiu Wai Hung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Case Number
HCMP2077/2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal, Miscellaneous Proceedings) / Determination of Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment in District Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Adverse Possession, Easement, Admission of Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall)
Source Language
EN
Property Civil Procedure Possession Easements Appeal Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal Adverse Possession +2 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Powerful Best Limited

Plaintiff

Lam Yuk Kui

1st Defendant

Chiu Wai Hung

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal, Miscellaneous Proceedings) / Determination of Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants established adverse possession of the disputed area
  2. 2 Whether the defendants had an interest in land capable of giving rise to an easement
  3. 3 Whether fresh allegations about lack of access to toilets should be admitted under the rule in Ladd v Marshall

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal dismissed because defendants only had non-exclusive permission (not adverse possession), lacked any interest in land to support an easement, and their late, unsworn assertions about toilet access did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria; accordingly the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs