Chan San v. Hans Li, The Person Appointed To Represent the Estate of Kam Shui Man, The Deceased
Read the full judgment text of HCA 840/2012 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 March 2019.
1. In this action, the plaintiff claims possessory title to the land in dispute by way of adverse possession pursuant to sections 7(2) and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347 against the defendants. The subject land comprises of part of Lot No 1212RP in DD 118, part of Lot No 1213 in DD 118, and the northern part of Lot No 1215 in DD 118. These three lots are connected and located in Yuen Long between Tai Shu Ha Road West and Nam Hang Tsuen: see Lot Index Map annexed to the Re-Re-Re-Re-Ame
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 3 cases
|
HCA 840/2012 [2019] HKCFI 714 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 840 OF 2012 ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Wilson Chan J in Court Dates of Hearing : 4 to 7 & 10 to 12 December 2018 Date of Judgment: 22 March 2019 ________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ A. INTRODUCTION 1.In this action, the plaintiff claims possessory title to the land in dispute by way of adverse possession pursuant to sections 7(2) and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347 against the defendants. The subject land comprises of part of Lot No 1212RP in DD 118, part of Lot No 1213 in DD 118, and the northern part of Lot No 1215 in DD 118. These three lots are connected and located in Yuen Long between Tai Shu Ha Road West and Nam Hang Tsuen: see Lot Index Map annexed to the Re-Re-Re-Re-Amended Statement of Claim, attached to this Judgment as “Appendix 1”. 2.After action against the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants were discontinued, the remaining parts of the land in dispute are part of Lot No 1212RP (“Area B”) and northern part of Lot No 1215 (“Area A”), as depicted in the Survey Plan attached to this Judgment as “Appendix 2”. The remaining parts of the subject land in dispute are separated by Lot No 1213. The plaintiff’s expert’s measurement of the size of Area A and Area B are respectively 1,633.8m2 (17,586 square feet) and 346m2 (3,724 square feet). 3.Area A (at Lot 1215) and Area B (at Lot 1212RP) are the parts of the land which the plaintiff (and/or his predecessors, father and grand-uncle) have allegedly dispossessed the 1st defendant. It should be noted that parts of Area A and Area B rest outside the boundaries of Lot 1215 and Lot 1212RP (ie on government land). The plaintiff’s claim for possessory title on Areas A and B only extends to the parts that rest within Lot 1215 or Lot 1212RP (“the Land”). B. THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE 4.The plaintiff’s pleaded case for adverse possession of the Land began with his father and grand-uncle in the 1960s or thereabouts, or the plaintiff’s father (after his grand-uncle had passed away), or by the plaintiff since 1976. 5.Since the 1960s, the plaintiff’s father and grand-uncle possessed the subject land, and possession was passed onto his father alone then to the plaintiff (since about 1976 and still continuing). 6.Between the 1960s to around 1972, his father and grand-uncle did not reside on the subject land, but enclosed the same for farming, storage and raising poultry. 7.In around 1972, the plaintiff arrived in Hong Kong and the Land. Since 1972 he resided on the subject land and maintained his father’s and grand-uncle’s enclosures and structures. They used the land for farming, storage, honey bee farming, planting fruit trees and vegetables, and raising poultry. 8.After about 1972, the plaintiff built a house made of wood and metal and used it as his residence. The location of this residence is marked green on Appendix 1. In the early 1990s, this house was renovated. In around 1997, this house was torn down, and in its place, a brick house with a galvanized roof was built. The plaintiff, his then wife and 2 daughters reside in this house. 9.In the 1980s, the plaintiff erected a brick house at the location marked yellow on Appendix 1. A distant relative surnamed Lo first lived there for a short time and subsequently the plaintiff’s son. 10.In the 2000s, the plaintiff pulled down a structure and reconstructed a brick house with galvanized roof on top and a canopy. The location of this house is marked blue on Appendix 1. 11.In about 2005, a structure on Area A fell down and the plaintiff re-erected another structure at the same location. This location is marked pink on Appendix 1. 12.In the 1990s, the plaintiff made the Land more accessible by constructing a road connecting Tai Shu Ha Road West to Area B. Further, he levelled the ground and pulled down trees on Area A and Lot 1213 so that the road passed through to Lot 1213 and eventually to Area A. 13.In respect of the electricity supply during the period of the plaintiff’s occupation, originally electricity was drawn from No 55 Nam Hang Tsuen (the electricity meter was registered in the name of the plaintiff’s uncle). In about 1987, the plaintiff applied for and obtained a new electricity meter for the Land which was registered in the name of the distant relative surnamed Lo (ie the one referred to in paragraph 9 above). In 1999, the electricity meter became registered in the name of the plaintiff. In respectively 2004 and 2006, the plaintiff applied for increase of electricity supply. 14.In respect of the water supply, in about 1987, the plaintiff began using water from a public water tap. He installed water pipes so that his family could have access to tap water. In about 2008, a water meter was also installed. 15.In respect of telephone line, in about 1990, the plaintiff applied for a telephone line registered under his name. C. THE 1ST DEFENDANT’S CASE 16.It is apparent from the 1st defendant’s Defence that he does not have a positive case on the plaintiff’s occupation of the Land. The counter-claim is for, inter alia,mesne profits arising from the plaintiff’s alleged trespass of the Land. 17.Until the grant of probate to her son, the Land (and the remaining parts of Lots 1215 and 1212RP) had been owned by Madam Kam Shui Man since 1995. Previously, it was held by one Overdale Limited, which is described as a holding company for the family properties of the Kam family. The Land (and the remaining parts of Lots 1215 and 1212RP) was originally acquired by the older sister of Madam Kam Shui Man, Madam Kam Pui Man in 1964. 18.On 21 July 2010 (for Lot 1212RP) and 26 July 2010 (for Lot 1215), the 1st defendant requested the plaintiff to, inter alia, demolish temporary structures and deliver vacant possession. The plaintiff did not comply. D. LAW ON ADVERSE POSSESSION 19.The relevant legal principles regarding adverse possession have been succinctly summarised by Andrew Cheung J (as the learned Cheung PJ then was) in Chang Shun Tak and Another v Leung Sun Fat and Others, HCA 13809/1997 (Judgment dated 18/08/2010): –
20.Since 1 July 1991, the applicable period for determining adverse possession was revised from 20 years to 12 years. If the right of action accrued after 1 July 1991, the prescribed period for adverse possession would be 12 years instead of 20: see section 38A(1) of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347. E. DISCUSSION 21.As noted above, the 1st defendant has no positive case, and in establishing adverse possession the plaintiff needs to prove factual possession and the animus possidendi. From the evidence adduced at trial, it is largely uncontroversial that there have been squatters in Area A since as early as 1969, and definitely no later than 1978. 22.The only material question is whether the plaintiff was the squatter. 23.In respect of when time of the plaintiff’s adverse possession stopped running, it is well established that an effective assertion by the paper own of his rights amounts to such. The leading case on this point is the English Court of Appeal’s judgment in Markfield Investments Ltd v Evans[2001] 1 WLR 1321. An assertion of right by the owner occurs when he takes legal proceedings against the squatter or makes an effective entry on the land. I agree with the plaintiff that this would be the date of the counterclaim of the 1st defendant, namely 30 January 2014. 24.I agree that the defendant can only rely on its counterclaim dated 30 January 2014 as the point when time stopped running. E1. The plaintiff and his family resided in Area A 25.As submitted by the plaintiff, if the court accepts that he had lived on Area A for the sufficient number of years[1], it is abundantly clear factual possession and the animus possidendi has been proved for Area A. Residing on Area A, exclusive possession of Area A, must be unequivocal conduct of factual possession with the required animus possidendi. Whether there is fencing or not has little or no bearing to the question of a squatter who lived on the land. 26.Regarding this, first, the plaintiff relies heavily on Mr Cheung (張富寶)’s evidence. Various parts of his witness statement have been challenged during Mr Cheung’s cross-examination. Mr Cheung stated that he did not confirm or express parts of his witness statements. Nonetheless, during cross-examination, much evidence was elicited (which I accept) that supported the plaintiff’s (and his family’s) occupation on the Land since the 1970s.
27.The second point is the electricity meter found on the Land and inspected during the site visit (the “Electricity Meter”), and more precisely on the house marked yellow on Appendix 1.
28.I agree with the plaintiff’s submissions that the above is cogent evidence that there has been electricity supply on the Land since before 1999. The Confirmation related to a change of name application and that implies there had been an electricity meter on the Land even before the application. The location of it on the yellow house marked on Appendix 1 is also significant. It supports the plaintiff’s case that there was previously an electricity meter registered in name of a Mr Lo, who had resided, as a guest, on the yellow house on the Land around the time the plaintiff’s son was born (in 1981). This was the first electricity meter set up on the Land. 29.It is noted the defendant has sought to make the point (during the cross-examination of the plaintiff) that the supply address of the Bill is the actual location of the service of electricity. This is clearly not the case as the Electricity Meter was found on the Land. 30.The third point is the road the plaintiff built connecting Tai Shu Ha Road West to Area A. If Area A was not his home, why would he connect Tai She Ha Road West to Area A? I agree that considering the inherent probabilities of the evidence as a whole, this road was opened up by the plaintiff for his use: namely to transport construction materials for reselling and containers for storage purposes. The defendant’s expert accepts that by 1998 there was evidence of a road connecting Tai Shu Ha Road West to Lot 1215. The plaintiff’s and Mr Cheung’s evidence was that the plaintiff had opened up a road from Tai Shu Ha Road West to Lot 1215 all by himself. The plaintiff’s case is that he gradually opened up this road. Just from comparing the aerial photographs respectively for 1995 and 1997, it is apparent that the plaintiff had begun clearing Area B and Lot 1213 sometime between 1995 to 1997. By 2000 a large section of the road from Lot 1212RP to Lot 1213 had been paved. By 2003, trees on Lot 1213 had been cleared, and by 2005 Lot 1213 was also paved. 31.The fourth point is the location and first appearance of various structures as set out in the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence. As confirmed by the defendant’s counsel, the location of the Green, Pink, Blue, and Yellow structures as set out in the pleadings are not in dispute. 32.Further, the aerial photographs and survey sheets can be independent contemporaneous evidence of adverse possession:
(for the rest of this Judgment, I shall refer to these structures as labeled on Appendix 1). 33.At item 10(c) of their Joint Report, the parties’ respective experts agree that on respectively the 1997, 2000, 2005 and 2008 aerial photographs, the Yellow, Green, Blue and Pink Structures were first seen erected and “remained stable in terms of position, shape, size and orientation since their erections up to present”. 34.When the plaintiff gave his evidence in chief, he was very clear on when he pulled down the wooden house (which had been refurbished after the birth of his elder daughter in 1993) and replaced it with a brick house (of about 500 square feet), because of the birth of his younger daughter. It is uncontroversial that his younger daughter is about 20 years old. In the circumstances, the identification of the Green house in 2000 sits comfortably with the plaintiff’s evidence. 35.Taking this together with the first to third points set out above, I agree with the plaintiff that, at minimum, there is sufficient evidence to find that the plaintiff was the squatter, and his adverse possession of Area A should begin to run in 1997, more than 12 years before January 2014. 36.I further agree with the plaintiff that there should be no unfair surprise to the 1st defendant if it is argued that adverse possession begins to run at 1997 (or even 2000). The general thrust of the pleading is clear that the plaintiff and his family had occupied the Land since about 1976. See: Chang Shun Tak and Another v Leung Sun Fat and Others, Supra, at paragraphs 85 to 93, where such an argument was raised by a defendant and rejected by the court. Whilst the decision in that case was based on its own pleadings, I agree that it is no different in the present case. The greater must include the less. 37.In respect of the areas outside the four structures (as residence or his home), I agree that by factual possession of the structures, the plaintiff had, at minimum, factually possessed Area A, if not the whole of Lot 1213 and Area B. Again, as noted above, the experts agree that starting in 1997, the Yellow, Green, Blue and Pink Structures were consistent in terms of position, shape, size and orientation since their erections up to present. It is clear from Appendix 2 that these four structures take up significant portions of Area A (especially the part which fall within the borders of Lot 1215). Considering the stream to the north and west of the Land, and the footpath (and ditch) to the south, by exclusive possession of the four structures, I agree that the plaintiff must have factual possession of the entire Area A, insofar as the parts which fall within Lot 1215. 38.The plaintiff also relies on the fence (just north of the footpath in Area A as depicted in Appendix 2) identified by his expert in the aerial photographs taken in 1985, 1993, 2005, 2008 and 2010 (respectively Exhibits P7 to P11). The defendant’s expert when examining the “linear feature” observed by the plaintiff’s expert, did not object to this probability for the 1985 aerial photograph (Exhibit P7). Whilst it is not a closed boundary feature, I agree the existence of fences on the south side of Area A further supports the plaintiff having factual possession of the whole of Area A. E2. Area B 39.Again, the importance of context has been rightly emphasized by the plaintiff when considering the “factual possession” and animus of the plaintiff in respect of the road on Area B. Given the nature of Area B, the land had realistically been subject to only limited activity of the squatter. Nonetheless, enclosure and total exclusion are not pre-requisites to adverse possession. Rather, what is important is how someone in the position of an occupying owner would ordinarily have used the land in question. The nature of Area B had changed from rural land to predominantly a driveway leading to Lot 1213 and Area A. I agree with the plaintiff that it is contrary to the nature of a driveway or road to be fenced off. More so for a relatively remote area in the New Territories for a road which just leads to Lot 1213 and the Land. To establish adverse possession, the plaintiff can simply rely on the constructed road from Tai Shu Ha Road West leading to Area A. As noted above, this road only leads to Lot 1213 and Area A. It did not serve any other land, and its enjoyment was exclusive to the plaintiff. 40.In the context of essentially a private driveway leading from Tai Shu Ha Road West to Area A, the question is what would one expect the plaintiff to have done to exclude the world at large? What is evident and uncontroversial is that the plaintiff had singlehandedly built the road, and slowly improved it: from a dirt road, to a paved road and extended it into Lot 1213 and Area A. Eventually he even connected the road to the footpath which had existed all along. In Lot 1213 and Area A, there is photographic evidence of containers and other large items being stored there. 41.The plaintiff singlehandedly (as confirmed by Mr Cheung) pulled down trees, levelled the land, paved the road, and extended the road into Lot 1213 and Area A. This is all evident in the aerial photographs taken in 1995, 1998 and 2001. 42.In the circumstances, even if the plaintiff had little physical control (for example, no barriers to prevent others from entering the road), I agree with the plaintiff’s submission that as a matter of law, there is still factual possession and the requisite intention on the part of the plaintiff regarding Area B. F. CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION 43.In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, I find that a case of adverse possession has been made out by the plaintiff in relation to the Land. 44.I therefore dismiss the 1st defendant’s counterclaim, and give judgment for the plaintiff on his claim to this extent, that is to say, in relation to Area A and Area B as depicted in Appendix 2, insofar as the same lies within Lot 1215 (for Area A) and Lot 1212RP (for Area B), I make a declaration that the 1st defendant has lost the right to bring any action against the plaintiff to recover the land or any part thereof by virtue of section 7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance; and that by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, the 1st defendant’s title, rights, benefits and interests, including the right to exclusive physical occupation, of and in the land or any part thereof has been extinguished in favour of the plaintiff. 45.I make a costs order nisi that the costs of the action, including the costs of the counterclaim, be paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed. I further order legal aid taxation of the plaintiff’s own costs. 46.The above costs order nisi shall become absolute in the absence of any application within 14 days to vary the same. 47.Lastly, I express my gratitude to counsel on both sides for their helpful assistance in this matter.
Mr Alwin Chan, instructed by Messrs K.W. Wong & T.S. Wong, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the plaintiff Mr Samuel Wong, instructed by Messrs Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum, for the 1st defendant Appendix 1
Appendix 2
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 840/2012