POWERFUL BEST LTD v. LAM YUK KUI AND ANOTHER

POWERFUL BEST LTD v. LAM YUK KUI AND ANOTHER

The defendants failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria to admit further evidence on appeal and their affidavit evidence was not capable of belief or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents (IO minutes, invoice, receipt) demonstrating IO/CLP access; they failed to show a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence of adverse possession; therefore the Registrar's summary judgment is upheld and leave to defend refused.

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
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Case Number
DCCJ4678/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Possession/land Dispute / Appeal From Registrar's Summary Judgment Under Order 58 RDC
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Registrar's order dated 23 May 2014 affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Adverse Possession, Ladd V Marshall New Evidence Test, Order 14 RDC, Order 58 RDC
Source Language
EN
Property Civil Procedure Land Law Evidence Appeals Summary Judgment Adverse Possession Ladd V Marshall New Evidence Test +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 8 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

Civil Possession/land Dispute / Appeal From Registrar's Summary Judgment Under Order 58 RDC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar's summary judgment should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether further evidence should be admitted on appeal under Ladd v Marshall
  3. 3 Whether defendants had established adverse possession of the Disputed Area

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria to admit further evidence on appeal and their affidavit evidence was not capable of belief or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents (IO minutes, invoice, receipt) demonstrating IO/CLP access; they failed to show a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence of adverse possession; therefore the Registrar's summary judgment is upheld and leave to defend refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Registrar's order dated 23 May 2014 affirmed

Orders

  • The defendants' summons to set aside the summary judgment is dismissed
  • The defendants' summons to adduce further evidence is dismissed