|
FAMV No. 50 of 2024
[2024] HKCFA 33
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 50 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM
CACV NO. 18 OF 2022)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
TSANG WOON MING (曾煥明)
|
Plaintiff
|
|
|
|
(Applicant)
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
TSAN HING TAT HEIDI (曾慶達)
|
1
st
Defendant
|
|
|
|
(1
st
Respondent)
|
|
|
CHOI KAM CHE CECILIA,
|
2
nd
Defendant
|
|
|
the surviving spouse and intended administratrix of
|
(2
nd
Respondent)
|
|
|
the estate of TSANG HING KWONG THOMAS
|
|
|
|
(曾慶光), deceased
|
|
|
|
YAP HENRY FAT SUAN (葉發旋)
|
3
rd
Defendant
|
|
|
|
(3
rd
Respondent)
|
|
|
YAP HENRIETTA CHUN WAH (葉俊華)
|
4
th
Defendant
|
|
|
|
(4
th
Respondent)
|
|
|
YAP JASON CHUN YING (葉俊英)
|
5
th
Defendant
|
|
|
|
(5
th
Respondent)
|
|
|
YAP CHUN HUNG ALEXANDER (葉俊雄)
|
6
th
Defendant
|
|
|
|
(6
th
Respondent)
|
________________________
|
Appeal Committee:
|
Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ and Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
|
Date of Hearing and Determination:
|
12 December 2024
|
|
Date of Reasons for Determination:
|
23 December 2024
|
__________________________________
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
__________________________________
Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:
1.
At the hearing, we dismissed this application for leave to appeal and now provide our reasons for so doing.
2.
The plaintiff/applicant’s (“
P’s
”) claim for possessory title to a Lot in Tai O by adverse possession failed before HH Judge Simon Leung
[1]
and in the Court of Appeal.
[2]
They held that he had failed to establish the necessary possessory intention and that his occupation of the property had been pursuant to an implied licence from the registered owner. In our view, their decisions, based on largely uncontroverted evidence, were plainly correct. P is now asking the Court to review the evidence and to overturn the inferences drawn. He is also seeking leave in respect of questions that are properly subject to a
Flywin
objection
[3]
and/or which do not arise on the facts. We do not think this application reasonably arguable.
A. The proposed questions
3.
Four questions are put forward and said to be of great or general public importance, namely:
What is the correct test for implied licence in adverse possession cases; in particular, whether the paper owner need to communicate his permiss
| 
Back
