Read the full judgment text of CACV 000061/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 July 1996 before Nazareth VP, Bokhary JA, Liu JA.
Civil procedure – summary judgment – RSC O3 r6 – notice of intention to proceed after year's delay – whether notice required to all defendants or only those against whom last proceeding taken – construction of 'cause or matter' – exercise of discretion under O2 r1 to waive technical irregularity – Land law – adverse possession – whether Crown Land Permit licence negatived intention to dispossess registered owner – new amendment appearing tailored to meet the law – Land law – proprietary estoppel – modern broad approach to unconscionability per Taylors Fashions – four ingredients in Snell's Equity per Brinnand v Ewens – expenditure incurred pursuant to Crown Land Permit – no encouragement or knowledge of mistaken belief – Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap 7) Part II protection – agricultural versus domestic tenancy – whether premises agricultural where Block Crown Lease demised as agricultural garden ground and modifications authorised chicken sheds and pigsties – tenant at sufferance not protected by Part II – Megarry and Wade characterisation of tenancy at sufferance as squatting – acquiescence in change of user not availing where no underlying domestic tenancy – Wong Chang-sung v CTSC distinguishable as based on English provisions not corresponding to Part II of Cap 7 – Court of Appeal dismissing all three appeals with costs certified for two counsel.
Legal issues: Construction of O3 r6 - whether notice of intention to proceed is required to all defendants · Exercise of discretion to waive O3 r6 irregularity under O2 r1 · Adverse possession - whether Crown licence negatived intention to dispossess owner · Proprietary estoppel - whether the four ingredients are satisfied · Nature of D14's tenancy - agricultural or domestic · Acquiescence in change of user giving rise to Part II tenancy protection · Tenant at sufferance entitled to Part II protection · D19's position regarding Part II tenancy and acquiescence
Outcome: All three appeals (CACV 61, 62 and 63 of 1996) dismissed; summary judgment for possession upheld against D1, D14 and D19.