16 Aug 2022
The plaintiff established uninterrupted factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the Claimed Area for the requisite period on unchallenged evidence; substituted service was valid; therefore the defendant's right to recover the Claimed Area was statute‑barred and the plaintiff acquired a possessory title.
18 Nov 2020
On the pleaded facts the plaintiff demonstrated exclusive factual possession and intention to possess for the statutory period; accordingly the defendant's right to recover the Property is statute-barred under s7(2) and the defendant's title is extinguished under s17; declaratory reliefs were appropriately granted on default.
15 Oct 2019
The plaintiff proved on the civil standard exclusive factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the Land from 2001 for a period exceeding 12 years by consistent evidence (occupation, fencing, utility accounts, works and planting); the defendants failed to provide particulars or credible evidence to raise a triable issue or to rebut possession; accordingly the defendants' right of action was statute-barred and by section 17 LO their title was extinguished and the plaintiff acquired the estate; summary judgment was therefore appropriate.
15 Jun 2010
The court, satisfied there was a genuine need for declaratory relief and that the Defendant had not contested the claim after substituted service, declared that the Defendant's right and title to Lot 306 are statute-barred and extinguished under s7(2) and s17 of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) and that the Plaintiffs (Tang Cho Sang and the Tso as managers) have acquired a possessory title to the Suit Land for the residue of the Government Lease to 30 June 2047.