未執行管有令是否中斷逆權管有？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED (大華發企業有限公司) 訴 CHAN YUNG KAN (陳容根) 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、Barma上訴法官、McWalters上訴法官 - 判決日期：2014年9月26日 ### 案情摘要 原告（上訴人）於1980年4月22日購入涉案土地，並於1983年1月7日註冊。第二被告（答辯人）的家人自約1960年起在該土地上耕作。1993年，原告針對未具名佔用人取得了一項管有令的缺席判決。第二被告的父親曾試圖撤銷該判決，但未成功。然而，原告從未執行該判決。原告於2007年3月19日提起本訴訟，要求收回土地管有權。原審法庭駁回了原告的申索，並裁定第二被告已透過逆權管有 (adverse possession) 取得土地業權。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原告於1993年取得的管有令缺席判決，是否中斷了第二被告的逆權管有連續性。原告主張該判決中斷了逆權管有，且第二被告未能就1993年後的管有提出替代申索。第二被告則堅持其家人自1960年起持續管有土地，並認為原告未執行判決不影響其逆權管有。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，僅憑管有令判決本身，若無實際執行，並不足以中斷逆權管有的連續性。法庭強調，逆權管有者在判決後仍持續佔用土地，其事實管有 (factual possession) 和管有意思 (animus possidendi) 並未改變。判決的執行時限為12年，若原告未在該期限內執行判決，則該判決將失效。因此，即使考慮到1993年的判決，第二被告在1993年至2007年間的持續管有已超過12年，足以確立逆權管有。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例以闡明逆權管有的法律原則，包括： - Yeung Kong v Fu Mei Ling Mary [1994] 2 HKC 1：關於新界逆權管有法律觀點的錯誤。 - Chung Ping Kwan v Lam Island [1996] 2 HKLR 315：重申所有逆權管有案件的法律觀點。 - Ting Kwok Keung v Tam Dick Yuen (2002) 5 HKCFAR 336：關於上訴法庭干預事實裁斷的原則。 - Wong Tak-yue v Kung Kwok Wai (1997-98) 1 HKCFAR at p 68：闡明逆權管有需具備管有及管有意思兩要素。 - Powell v McFarlane (1977) 38 P&CR 452：關於逆權管有要素的討論。 - Hong Kong Kam Lan Koon Ltd v Realray Investment Ltd (No 5) [2007] 5 HKC 122：關於逆權管有要素的討論。 - Lougher v Donovan [1948] 2 All ER 11：關於判決執行時限。 - Re Li Man Hoo [2013] 4 HKLRD 247：關於判決執行時限。 - British Celanese Ltd v Courtaulds Ltd (1935) 52 RPC 171：關於專家證據的運用。 - Chen Paul v Lord Energy Ltd [1998] 1 HKC 702：關於專家證據的運用。 - Guangzhou Green-Enhan Bio-Engineering v Green Power Health Products HCA 4651 of 2002, 16 Sept 2004：關於專家證據的運用。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了原告的上訴。原審法庭授予第二被告的逆權管有聲明被撤銷，原因是缺乏反申索且聲明措辭不精確。原告須支付第二被告的訟費，並發出兩名大律師證明書。第二被告因撤回修改答辯狀的申請，須支付原告相關訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，僅憑未經執行的管有令判決，並不足以中斷逆權管有的連續性。判決的執行受《時效條例》(Limitation Ordinance) 第4(4)條規定的12年時限限制。若業主未在時限內執行判決，則逆權管有者可繼續累積管有時間。此外，法庭對專家證據的採納持謹慎態度，僅在法院無法自行評估證據時才接受專家意見。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED v CHAN YUNG KAN and Others - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Lam VP, Barma JA, McWalters JA - Date of Judgment: 26 September 2014 ### Factual Background The Plaintiff (Appellant) acquired the land in question on 22 April 1980, with the assignment registered on 7 January 1983. The 2nd Defendant's (Respondent's) family had been cultivating the land since about 1960. In 1993, the Plaintiff obtained a default judgment for possession against unnamed occupiers. An attempt by the 2nd Defendant's father to set aside this judgment was unsuccessful. However, the Plaintiff never enforced the judgment. The Plaintiff commenced the present action on 19 March 2007, seeking possession of the land. The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim and granted a declaration in favour of the 2nd Defendant for adverse possession. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the default judgment for possession obtained by the Plaintiff in 1993 broke the continuity of the 2nd Defendant's adverse possession. The Plaintiff argued that the judgment severed the chain of adverse possession and that the 2nd Defendant had not pleaded an alternative case for possession starting after 1993. The 2nd Defendant maintained that his family's possession had been continuous since 1960 and that the unenforced judgment did not affect their adverse possession. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that a judgment for possession, without actual enforcement, does not in itself break the continuity of adverse possession. The court emphasized that a squatter remaining in occupation after a judgment does not change the quality of their factual possession or their animus possidendi. The time limit for enforcing a judgment is 12 years. If the plaintiff fails to enforce the judgment within this period, it becomes ineffective. Therefore, even considering the 1993 judgment, the 2nd Defendant's continuous possession from 1993 to 2007, exceeding 12 years, was sufficient to establish adverse possession. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to clarify the principles of adverse possession, including: - Yeung Kong v Fu Mei Ling Mary [1994] 2 HKC 1: Regarding the erroneous view of law on adverse possession in the New Territories. - Chung Ping Kwan v Lam Island [1996] 2 HKLR 315: Reaffirming the legal position for all adverse possession cases. - Ting Kwok Keung v Tam Dick Yuen (2002) 5 HKCFAR 336: Principles for appellate interference with factual findings. - Wong Tak-yue v Kung Kwok Wai (1997-98) 1 HKCFAR at p 68: Defining the two elements of adverse possession: possession and intention to possess. - Powell v McFarlane (1977) 38 P&CR 452: Discussion on elements of adverse possession. - Hong Kong Kam Lan Koon Ltd v Realray Investment Ltd (No 5) [2007] 5 HKC 122: Discussion on elements of adverse possession. - Lougher v Donovan [1948] 2 All ER 11: On the time limit for enforcing judgments. - Re Li Man Hoo [2013] 4 HKLRD 247: On the time limit for enforcing judgments. - British Celanese Ltd v Courtaulds Ltd (1935) 52 RPC 171: On the use of expert evidence. - Chen Paul v Lord Energy Ltd [1998] 1 HKC 702: On the use of expert evidence. - Guangzhou Green-Enhan Bio-Engineering v Green Power Health Products HCA 4651 of 2002, 16 Sept 2004: On the use of expert evidence. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. The declaration of adverse possession granted to the 2nd Defendant by the trial judge was set aside due to the lack of a counterclaim and imprecise wording. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the 2nd Defendant's costs of the appeal, with a certificate for two counsel. The 2nd Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs related to the withdrawn application to amend the defence. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that an unenforced judgment for possession does not, by itself, break the continuity of adverse possession. The enforcement of a judgment is subject to a 12-year limitation period under Section 4(4) of the Limitation Ordinance. If a landowner fails to enforce a judgment within this period, the adverse possessor can continue to accrue time. Furthermore, the court exercises caution in admitting expert evidence, only accepting it when the court cannot properly assess the evidence without such assistance. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.