13 Aug 2021
Leave to appeal was granted because there is a genuine legal issue with a real prospect of success: whether post‑limitation conduct (negotiations, village practice, land survey) can properly be used to infer the plaintiff's animus possidendi during the relevant earlier period and whether acknowledgement of title must be written and within the limitation period.
4 May 2018
Leave to appeal was granted because the defendant demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on key factual disputes (notably the 1998 sale and the extent of possession/renovation) such that the default judgment should be resolved at trial; it was appropriate to grant a stay of execution of possession and costs orders pending the appeal; costs of the summons ordered nisi to be in the cause.
27 Dec 2017
Leave to appeal and stay were refused because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on the substantive issues (insufficient degree of conviction in her defence and the reply letter either constituted an acknowledgement or, even if the legal point is open, that issue would not alter the outcome), and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave; accordingly no stay of execution was justified.
27 Feb 2017
The court held that SJ must be joined and the proposed amendments allowed because the questions as to whether government surveys/registrations gave rise to a licence/possession by the Crown and whether government letters amounted to acknowledgements of SODC’s title are common, directly related to the relief claimed and necessary to ensure all matters in dispute can be effectively determined; at the joinder stage the court need only be satisfied of locus/interest and not the substantive merits of the government's case.
27 Feb 2017
The court held that SODC demonstrated that common issues (government licence/adverse possession and written acknowledgements affecting limitation) are directly related to the relief sought and that the Secretary for Justice has sufficient interest such that joinder is necessary under O.15 r.6(2)(b)(ii); merit of the Government's potential defence is not a precondition to joinder, therefore the joinder and consequential amendments were allowed and the factual allegations in the proposed amendments are to be treated as true for the purpose of the joinder stage.
27 Feb 2017
The court granted joinder and allowed amendments because SODC demonstrated that the Government has a direct interest in the factual and legal issues (surveys/licenses, alleged governmental possession, and written acknowledgements) that are common to the actions and necessary for complete adjudication; merit of SJ’s substantive defence is not a prerequisite to joinder and the issues are best determined with SJ before the court.
29 Mar 2016
Because rent was paid for Ngong Kwai Tau (including Lot 2158) with the last recorded receipt in 1999 the owner's right of action accrued in 1999; neither Cheung Wan nor the 1st defendant proved the requisite animus possidendi or exclusive factual possession of Lot 2158 prior to 14 November 2000, and the 1st defendant's written offer in June 2010 to return the premises further negates intention to exclude the owner. Therefore adverse possession was not established and the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession, nominal damages and an injunction.
2 Apr 2014
Although the appeal was assessed as barely arguable, the court granted a stay because the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo: there was a real risk of irreversible demolition if execution proceeded and no assurance or urgency from the plaintiff to justify immediate execution; D1 gave an undertaking to prosecute the appeal with expedition, satisfying conditions for a stay pending the July appeal.
1 Apr 2014
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; key issues were legal not factual and the Fairweather principle did not assist plaintiffs given the defendants' claim deriving from the licensor and the court's view that plaintiffs' title was arguably extinguished before the government's alleged acknowledgement; therefore no sufficient grounds for appeal existed and costs were ordered.
17 Sept 2013
Defendants raised triable issues that the government, as squatter, had been in continuous adverse possession sufficient to extinguish the plaintiffs' title under the 1833 Act in 1981-1985, and that the defendants may rely on limitation; alleged later acknowledgements did not sufficiently revive a cause of action brought in 2000; accordingly summary judgment was refused and defendants were granted unconditional leave to amend and defend.