LAM MAN LAU AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

LAM MAN LAU AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Leave to appeal was refused and the stay dismissed because the trial judge's findings involved assessment of witness credibility and inherent probabilities and were within the range of reasonable conclusions; the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or that the findings were plainly wrong.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAM MAN LAU AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Parties
Plaintiff (manager): Lam Man Lau; Plaintiff (manager): Lam Chim Lau; Plaintiff (manager): Lam Chun Kwong; Plaintiff (manager): Lam Chau Shing; Defendant: Secretary for Justice
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 September 2016
Case Number
DCCJ1682/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Adverse Possession (land) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution in District Court (decision)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application for stay of execution dismissed; costs ordered against plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Leave to Appeal, Standard of Review, Factual Findings, Stay of Execution, Costs
Source Language
en
Property Law Civil Procedure Appellate Review Adverse Possession Leave to Appeal Standard of Review Factual Findings Stay of Execution +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Lam Man Lau

Plaintiff (manager)

Lam Chim Lau

Plaintiff (manager)

Lam Chun Kwong

Plaintiff (manager)

Lam Chau Shing

Plaintiff (manager)

Secretary for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Adverse Possession (land) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution in District Court (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs established uninterrupted factual possession and intention to possess the Land for 60 years prior to 12 November 2011
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's factual findings were plainly wrong so as to justify appellate intervention
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the proposed grounds

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused and the stay dismissed because the trial judge's findings involved assessment of witness credibility and inherent probabilities and were within the range of reasonable conclusions; the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or that the findings were plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application for stay of execution dismissed; costs ordered against plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Stay of execution pending appeal dismissed