15 Sept 2017
何幹業 對 麥興龍及另二人
- Citation
- 何幹業 對 麥興龍及另二人
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCMP3210/2013
Defendants failed to prove the necessary elements of adverse possession: their evidence lacked credibility and did not establish single and conclusive factual possession or an unequivocal intention to exclude the registered owner for the requisite period; occupier's use was pursuant to a licence (oral then written) which was validly terminated and therefore the Limitation Ordinance did not extinguish the plaintiff's title; accordingly plaintiff's claim for possession succeeds and defendants' counterclaims for title by adverse possession are dismissed.