22 Apr 2021
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the fixed pitch hawker licence is regulatory in nature and does not confer a proprietary right or right to occupy land that could override a superior possessory title; therefore the proposed appeal lacks a reasonable prospect of success under s.63A(2)(a) District Court Ordinance.
13 Nov 2020
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the Structure and the plot of land it stands on because the plaintiff established a superior possessory title under the doctrine of relativity of titles; the hawker licence did not confer proprietary rights to the defendant; the defendant raised no triable issue of identification or ownership of the Structure; and the Master erred in requiring a perfect or absolute title for relief under O.113.
10 Apr 2015
The court refused summary possession under Order 113 because credible, substantial factual disputes about beneficial ownership and the source of purchase funds required resolution at trial; the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success for leave to appeal under section 63A(2); the costs order nisi for the Order 113 application remains costs in the cause and the defendant's application to vary the costs order nisi fails; both interim costs orders nisi relating to the leave and variation applications are made absolute with directions for taxation if not agreed.