Yu Fung Co Ltd v. Olympic City Properties Ltd and Another

HCMP 1084/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1084 OF 2008

__________________

__________________

AND

HCA 3104/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 3104 OF 2015

__________________

__________________

(Heard Together)

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.I am grateful for counsel’s succinctness in their submissions.

2.The issues in the intended appeal can be boiled down to the single question whether Madam Cheung is only entitled to ventilate her adverse possession claim under the original proceedings as opposed to starting a fresh set of proceedings.

3.It is a highly important issue because of the impact on the chances of success of the adverse possession claim.

4.Despite Mr Vaughan’s attractive submissions, I am unable to see why the learned Deputy High Court Judge Keith had erred in distinguishing Chan Kwok Chu v Gotland Enterprises Ltd, HCA 282/2015, 6 January 2016.  The critical point in the distinction is that Madam Cheung was not a party to the original proceedings, and there is no reason to force her to join in the same which would likely result in the defeat of her adverse possession claim by reason of the relation back principle.

5.With respect, I am unable to agree that the intended appeal is reasonably arguable and I therefore dismiss this application with costs to Madam Cheung.

Mr Joseph Vaughan, instructed by Gallant, for the Plaintiff in HCMP 1084/2008 and the 2^nd Defendant in HCA 3104/2015

Mr Jonathan Chang and Mr Martin Ho, instructed by Dundons, for the Interested Party in HCMP 1084/2008 and the Plaintiff in HCA 3104/2015