Chung Loi Kiu v. Lau Yip Hung
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1151/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 August 2021.
1. The application in this case is made by Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) (in Chinese) dated 17 August 2021.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCAL 1151/2021 [2021] HKCFI 2463 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1151 OF 2021 ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Coleman J in Court Date of Judgment: 24 August 2021 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ A. Introduction 1.The application in this case is made by Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) (in Chinese) dated 17 August 2021. 2.However, the proposed respondent named on the Form 86 seems to be a private individual, and not any person or body amenable to judicial review. That is perhaps unsurprising where the thrust of the intended claim is made by reference to the provisions of the Limitation Ordinance Cap 347, and the claim is to ownership through adverse possession of a piece of land, on the basis that the Applicant has been in occupation of that land for a period of 70 or so years. The proposed claim seems to me to be dealing with the rights and obligations of, and an apparent dispute between, two private individuals. B. Resolution 3.In those circumstances, these proceedings are not the proper way to make a claim to ownership of a piece of land based on adverse possession. 4.Further, in so far as there might be a complaint that the Land Registry identifies the wrong person as the owner of the relevant piece of land, that is a matter that could be resolved only after the resolution of any dispute as to ownership of the sort identified by the Applicant. 5.Therefore, this application must be dismissed. Should the Applicant wish to pursue her claim, she would need to do so in the right form of proceedings.
The applicant acting in person | |||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case