|
Press Summary (English)
Press Summary (Chinese)
FACV No. 12 of 2024
[2025] HKCFA 8
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
FINAL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
(ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 498 OF 2022)
___________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
WONG WAI YING ANITA
|
1
st
Plaintiff
|
|
|
|
(1
st
Respondent)
|
|
|
TANG CHOI WOON
|
2
nd
Plaintiff
|
|
|
|
(2
nd
Respondent)
|
|
|
WONG WAI SHAN
|
3
rd
Plaintiff
|
|
|
|
(3
rd
Respondent)
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
SO KWAI CHUNG
|
1
st
Defendant
|
|
|
|
(Appellant)
|
|
|
WONG MING KWONG
|
2
nd
Defendant
|
|
|
|
(4
th
Respondent)
|
___________________________
|
Before:
|
Chief Justice Cheung, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Keane NPJ
|
|
Date of Hearing:
|
7 April 2025
|
|
Date of Judgment:
|
20 May 2025
|
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Chief Justice Cheung:
1.
I agree with the joint judgment of Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Keane NPJ.
Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:
2.
I agree with the joint judgment of Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Keane NPJ.
Mr Justice Fok PJ:
3.
I agree with the joint judgment of Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Keane NPJ.
Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Keane NPJ:
4.
This appeal concerns the intersection of the rights of tenants in common with the principles of proprietary estoppel. At issue, in particular, is the nature and extent of the liability of a tenant in common (in this case the first defendant, “D1”) to a third party (in this case the plaintiffs, “the Ps”) where the other tenant in common (in this case the second defendant, “D2”) is bound by proprietary estoppel to allow a right of way over the land owned in common by both D1 and D2 (“Ds’ Land”). At trial, and in the Court of Appeal, this issue was resolved in favour of the Ps. D1 now appeals to this Court.
5.
In the appeal, D1 contends that he cannot be precluded from denying the Ps’ right of way by the proprietary estoppel that was held to arise against D2. D1 argues that he did not know of, and was not involved in, the events that gave rise to the estoppel imposed in favour of the Ps against D2. The Ps do not seek to support the decisions of the courts below against D1 on the basis that D1 was himself directly bound by the proprietary estoppel that arose against D2. Rather, the Ps contend that one tenant in common may bind another tenant in common to the grant of a right to enter and pass over land held in common provided that the right does not go beyond what is reasonable and incidental to the grantor’s possession and enjoyment of the land, and does not interfere with the p
| 
Back
