SO TIN HO v. LUI SZE MUI AND ANOTHER

SO TIN HO v. LUI SZE MUI AND ANOTHER

Default judgment is refused because the plaintiff's pleadings do not establish the essential elements of adverse possession: there is no pleaded change from consent to non‑consent after the registered owner's death (so lack of intention to possess), no pleaded factual exclusive possession (no allegation of exclusive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 1235
Parties
Plaintiff: SO TIN HO; 1st Defendant: LUI SZE MUI; 2nd Defendant: SO YUN KEUNG (Administrator of the estate of NG SIU FONG)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 September 2023
Case Number
DCCJ6439/2019
Procedural Posture
Adverse Possession / Declaratory Relief / Application for Default Judgment Under Order 13 R6 and Order 19 R7 (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Default Judgment, Declaratory Relief, Abandonment of Title, Limitation Ordinance S17
Source Language
en
Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Adverse Possession Default Judgment Declaratory Relief Abandonment of Title Limitation Ordinance S17

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SO TIN HO

Plaintiff

LUI SZE MUI

1st Defendant

SO YUN KEUNG (Administrator of the estate of NG SIU FONG)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Adverse Possession / Declaratory Relief / Application for Default Judgment Under Order 13 R6 and Order 19 R7 (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff established adverse possession sufficient to acquire possessory title
  2. 2 Whether a default judgment for declaratory relief can be granted on the pleadings alone
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' proprietary interests were extinguished under section 17 Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347)

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment is refused because the plaintiff's pleadings do not establish the essential elements of adverse possession: there is no pleaded change from consent to non‑consent after the registered owner's death (so lack of intention to possess), no pleaded factual exclusive possession (no allegation of exclusive keys or exclusion of the owners, payments alone are insufficient), and no pleaded acts showing abandonment by the registered owners; accordingly declaratory relief cannot be granted on the existing pleadings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order as to costs