Read the full judgment text of CAMP137/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 February 2019 before Lam Woon-ham VP, Chu Fen-ling JA.
Civil procedure – application for leave to appeal – adverse possession – trial judge's findings of fact – solicitor negligence – new evidence – Ladd v Marshall – threshold for leave to appeal – reasonable prospect of success – interests of justice – stay of execution – costs. The plaintiff claimed adverse possession of a common area in a building. The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff's evidence not credible and that the flower shop moved into the area only in 2009. The plaintiff sought leave to appeal on grounds of solicitor negligence and new evidence. The Court of Appeal held that the negligence claim was not a valid ground of appeal and the new evidence did not satisfy the conditions in Ladd v Marshall. The trial judge's findings of fact were not shown to be clearly wrong. Leave to appeal refused. Stay of execution dismissed. Costs of HK$40,000 ordered.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal - adverse possession claim
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused. Application for stay of execution dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 4 cases