TO KAN CHI (陶根池)TO FUK TIM (陶福添)andTO KAM CHAU (陶鑑籌)(asmanagersof the)TO KA YI TSO (陶嘉儀祖) v TO CHEONG LAM (陶昌林)TO SIU LAM (陶兆林)TO MEI LUN (陶美粦)TO MAN HING (陶萬興)andTO MUK TAI (陶木泰)(as representatives of the To Clan)

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 000562/1992 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 November 1998.

1. The Bill and Answer in Chancery in a suit instituted a great many years before by another grantee of the Crown against the corporation and in which the limits of the alleged history were described. It was admissible as part of the history of the fishery and of the claims made to it. (The right to exclude the public therefrom and to create a several fishery, existed in the Crown, and might, lawfully, have been exercised by the Crown before the Magna Charta i.e. 1215.)

Cited by 11 cases