缺席判決下逆權管有宣告性濟助的授予？申索得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Law Yuk Fong v Man Chung Wai and Another - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Marlene Ng - 判決日期：2017年1月12日 ### 案情摘要 原告羅玉芳聲稱自1961年起，她與家人一直佔用新界元朗石湖圍丈量約份第105約多幅土地，其中包括第一被告擁有的第597號地段及第二被告擁有的第738號地段。原告尋求法庭宣告她為該等土地的佔有業主，且兩名被告對該等土地的業權已根據《時效條例》(Limitation Ordinance) 第17條被消滅。兩名被告均未有提交認收服務書或抗辯書，亦未有出庭應訊。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於原告是否已根據《時效條例》成功確立對第597號地段及第738號地段的逆權管有 (adverse possession)。法庭須審視原告是否符合事實管有 (factual possession) 及管有意思 (animus possidendi) 的要求，以及逆權管有是否已持續足夠的法定年期以消滅原業主的業權。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，在被告缺席聆訊的情況下，雖然通常不會在沒有審訊或證據的情況下作出宣告，但若原告有充分理據，法庭有責任給予其應得的全面公正。法庭審視了逆權管有的法律原則，包括事實管有、管有意思及持續性。對於第597號地段，原告在租賃關係結束後繼續佔用，時間從1985年開始計算。對於第738號地段，原告在特許權 (licence) 結束後繼續佔用，時間亦從1985年開始計算。法庭根據原告的誓章及測量報告，確認原告已持續及不受干擾地佔用該兩幅土地超過20年，並具備將全世界包括註冊業主排除在外的管有意思。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例，包括 Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2017 Vol 1 關於缺席判決的原則，以及 Top One International (China) Property Group Co Ltd v Top One Property Group Ltd [2011] 1 HKLRD 606 關於在缺席判決中作出宣告的限制。此外，亦引用了 Wallesteiner v Moir [1974] 1 W.L.R. 991、Patten v Burke Publishing Co. Ltd [1991] 1 W.L.R. 541、Lam Shing Shou v Lam Hon Man & ors HCA361/2001、Lai Wai Kuen v Wong Shau Kwong HCA3424/2003 及 Wu Chi Kwong v Estate of Cheung Man Yau [2008] 3 HKLRD 503 等案例，以確立在缺席判決中作出宣告的酌情權及逆權管有的法律原則。Powell v McFarlane & Anor (1979) 38 P&CR 452 則被引用以闡釋事實管有及管有意思的定義。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定原告勝訴，宣告第一被告對第597號地段的業權及第二被告對第738號地段的業權已根據《時效條例》第17條被絕對消滅。法庭進一步宣告原告已逆權管有該兩幅土地超過20年，並因此獲得佔有業權。法庭沒有就訟費作出命令，並指示原告的訟費按法律援助規例評定。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，即使在被告缺席聆訊的情況下，法庭仍可酌情作出宣告性濟助 (declaratory relief)，前提是原告的申索具有充分理據。判決強調了逆權管有中事實管有和管有意思的重要性，並闡明了租賃或特許權關係結束後，逆權管有時間的起算點。這對處理類似的土地糾紛案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: Law Yuk Fong v Man Chung Wai and Another - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Marlene Ng - Date of Judgment: 12 January 2017 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Law Yuk Fong, claimed that since 1961, she and her family had been occupying various lots of land in DD105, Shek Wu Wai, Yuen Long, New Territories, including Lot 597 owned by the 1st defendant and Lot 738 owned by the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff sought declarations that she was the owner in possession of these lots and that the defendants' titles were extinguished by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance. Both defendants failed to file acknowledgments of service or defences and did not appear at the hearing. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the plaintiff had successfully established adverse possession over Lot 597 and Lot 738 under the Limitation Ordinance. The court needed to assess if the plaintiff met the requirements for factual possession and animus possidendi, and if the adverse possession had continued for the statutory period to extinguish the original owners' titles. ### Ratio Decidendi The court ruled that, despite the general practice of not granting declarations in default judgments without trial or evidence, it was the court's paramount duty to do full justice to the plaintiff where the claim had merit. The court examined the legal principles of adverse possession, including factual possession, animus possidendi, and continuity. For Lot 597, the plaintiff's occupation continued after the tenancy ended, with time running from 1985. For Lot 738, occupation continued after the licence ceased, also from 1985. Based on the plaintiff's affidavit and survey report, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had been in continuous and uninterrupted occupation of both lots for over 20 years, with the intention to exclude the whole world, including the registered owners. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases, including Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2017 Vol 1 on default judgment principles, and Top One International (China) Property Group Co Ltd v Top One Property Group Ltd [2011] 1 HKLRD 606 regarding limitations on granting declarations in default. Other cases cited for the court's discretion in granting declaratory relief in default and adverse possession principles included Wallesteiner v Moir [1974] 1 W.L.R. 991, Patten v Burke Publishing Co. Ltd [1991] 1 W.L.R. 541, Lam Shing Shou v Lam Hon Man & ors HCA361/2001, Lai Wai Kuen v Wong Shau Kwong HCA3424/2003, and Wu Chi Kwong v Estate of Cheung Man Yau [2008] 3 HKLRD 503. Powell v McFarlane & Anor (1979) 38 P&CR 452 was cited for the definitions of factual possession and animus possidendi. ### Decision & Orders The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that the 1st defendant's title to Lot 597 and the 2nd defendant's title to Lot 738 were absolutely extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance. The court further declared that the plaintiff had been in adverse possession of both lots for no less than 20 years and was entitled to possessory title. No order was made as to costs, and the plaintiff's costs were to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that declaratory relief can be granted at the court's discretion in default judgment cases, provided the plaintiff's claim is meritorious. It underscores the importance of factual possession and animus possidendi in adverse possession claims and clarifies the commencement of the limitation period after the termination of tenancy or licence agreements. This provides guidance for similar land dispute cases. --- ### 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.