CHAN HON HONG AND OTHERS v. LI MAN FAN

CHAN HON HONG AND OTHERS v. LI MAN FAN

Both interlocutory mandatory injunction applications were dismissed because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the requisite high degree of assurance on the merits regarding illegality of the alleged structures and failed to particularise the injunctions; evidence was scant, unparticularised and inconsistent, the encroachment/adverse possession issues remained unresolved and untested, and the balance of convenience (including risk of prejudice to the defendant and preservation of status quo) favoured refusal; in Action 691 undue delay reinforced refusal.

Citation
CHAN HON HONG AND OTHERS v. LI MAN FAN
Parties
1st Plaintiff (dccj 690): Chan Hon Hong; 2nd Plaintiff (as Manager of Chan Yam Chau Tso) (dccj 690): Chan Kwai Ping; 3rd Plaintiff (dccj 690): Chan Wan Choi; 3rd Plaintiff (dccj 690): Chan Wan Ping; 4th Plaintiff (dccj 690): Chan Yung Fat; Plaintiff (dccj 691): Yiu Yee Man; Defendant (dccj 690 and DCCJ 691): Li Man Fan
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 June 2015
Case Number
DCCJ690/2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application (trespass) / Chambers Hearing — Interlocutory Summons Dismissed (reasons Delivered)
Outcome
Interlocutory summonses in both actions dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiffs; amendment to substitute defendant allowed.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction, Adverse Possession, Particularity of Orders, Balance of Convenience, Delay
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Land Law Trespass Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction Adverse Possession Particularity of Orders +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Hon Hong

1st Plaintiff (dccj 690)

Chan Kwai Ping

2nd Plaintiff (as Manager of Chan Yam Chau Tso) (dccj 690)

Chan Wan Choi

3rd Plaintiff (dccj 690)

Chan Wan Ping

3rd Plaintiff (dccj 690)

Chan Yung Fat

4th Plaintiff (dccj 690)

Yiu Yee Man

Plaintiff (dccj 691)

Li Man Fan

Defendant (dccj 690 and DCCJ 691)

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application (trespass) / Chambers Hearing — Interlocutory Summons Dismissed (reasons Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried on trespass and alleged illegal structures
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs provided sufficient particularity of the injunction and evidence of illegality
  3. 3 Whether defendant had acquired title by adverse possession (encroachment) extinguishing owners' rights

Ratio Decidendi

Both interlocutory mandatory injunction applications were dismissed because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the requisite high degree of assurance on the merits regarding illegality of the alleged structures and failed to particularise the injunctions; evidence was scant, unparticularised and inconsistent, the encroachment/adverse possession issues remained unresolved and untested, and the balance of convenience (including risk of prejudice to the defendant and preservation of status quo) favoured refusal; in Action 691 undue delay reinforced refusal.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory summonses in both actions dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiffs; amendment to substitute defendant allowed.

Orders

  • Amendment allowed substituting the defendant's name to Li Man Fan in both actions and treating earlier filed documents as referring to the substituted defendant