Insufficient evidence of possession and intention to possess

In Tang Ching v Wu Wan Yau ([2013] HKEC 363, CFI) T claimed to have been in adverse possession of W’s land since 1976. He claimed that his possession had initially been under the terms of an oral tenancy but that this had been ended by W’s predecessor in 1976 and that T refused to leave. T failed since there was insufficient evidence of the necessary possession and intention to possess for the full twenty year period. T had roped off the land, perhaps as early as 2001. There was not sufficient evidence of T being in possession or having an intention to possess before that. The 2001 photographic evidence showed some trees but they showed an ‘overgrown, neglected plot with some trees.’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: