持牌人佔用是否構成逆權管有？申索得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TSANG FOO (also known as FU) KEUNG and KEY KWONG DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v CHU JIM MI JIMMY and WU CHEE LING and WU CHEE LING trading as ORCHID FLORIST - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：周家明法官 (Hon Chow J) - 判決日期：2015年6月30日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及香港中環安慶臺一小部分土地的擁有權或佔有權。原告是該土地的註冊擁有人，該土地上建有常春藤大廈，並包含一條新樓梯和一個平台，這些構成了安慶臺的一部分，通常用作公共街道。第一被告的父母曾於1963/64年至1985年間，在新樓梯經營小販攤檔，聲稱已取得該區域的逆權管有 (adverse possession)。第二及第三被告亦曾於該處經營小販攤檔，但其爭議已於審訊開始前達成和解。本案主要處理原告針對第一被告的收回土地佔有權申索，以及第一被告聲稱已取得逆權管有的反申索。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於第一被告的父母是否已就其小販攤檔所佔用的土地取得逆權管有。原告方認為，第一被告的父母是政府牌照持有人，其佔用是基於牌照而非以自身權利佔有，因此不構成逆權管有。此外，原告亦提出非法行為（例如違反牌照條件）應阻止逆權管有申索。第一被告則主張其父母對該土地有足夠的事實管有 (factual possession) 及管有意思 (intention to possess)，並已持續佔用超過法定時限。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定，第一被告的父母在1963/64年至1985年間，是根據政府發出的小販牌照佔用該土地，而非以自身權利佔有。根據法律原則，持牌人 (licensee) 的佔用應被視為發牌人 (licensor) 的佔用，因此不構成逆權管有。此外，法官認為，即使不考慮牌照問題，其佔用亦是為特定或有限目的（即小販經營），並受到嚴格限制，不符合逆權管有中「事實管有」及「管有意思」的要求。法官亦指出，第一被告未能證明其父母有排除業主及其他人的管有意思。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個關於逆權管有 (adverse possession) 的重要案例，包括： - Shine Empire Ltd v Incorporated Owners of San Po Kong Mansion [2006] 4 HKLRD 1 (上訴法庭，獲終審法院確認，(2007) 10 HKCFAR 588)，該案闡述了逆權管有的兩個基本要素：足夠的事實管有和管有意思。 - Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P&CR 452 (獲JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419批准)，詳細說明了事實管有和管有意思的構成要素。 - Brazil v Brazil [2005] All ER (D) 311 (Mar) 及 Sze To Chun Keung v Kung Kwok Wai David & anor [1997] 1 WLR 1232，確立了持牌人佔用不構成逆權管有的原則，即使發牌人並非真正業主。 - Wu Chee Ling v Urban Council [1996] 3 HKC 230，討論了政府在私人土地上發出小販牌照的權力及業主同意的重要性。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定原告勝訴，並頒令收回第一被告所佔用的新樓梯部分土地。第一被告針對原告以及第二、第三被告的反申索均被駁回。第二、第三被告針對第一被告的反申索亦被駁回。法庭命令第一被告支付原告的訟費，包括兩名大律師的費用，並支付第二、第三被告就其反申索的訟費。第二、第三被告需支付第一被告就其反申索的訟費，但僅限於審訊開始前的費用。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了逆權管有 (adverse possession) 必須具備「以自身權利」佔有而非作為持牌人佔有的原則。即使政府並非土地業主，其發出的小販牌照仍會使佔用者成為持牌人，從而阻礙逆權管有申索。判決亦強調，小販經營等受嚴格規管的活動，其佔用通常難以滿足逆權管有對「事實管有」及「管有意思」的嚴格要求。法官未就非法行為是否必然阻止逆權管有申索作出最終裁定，但暗示本案所涉非法行為的性質和嚴重性可能不足以構成絕對阻礙。 --- ### 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: TSANG FOO (also known as FU) KEUNG and KEY KWONG DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v CHU JIM MI JIMMY and WU CHEE LING and WU CHEE LING trading as ORCHID FLORIST - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chow J - Date of Judgment: 30 June 2015 ### Factual Background This action concerns the ownership or right to possession of a small portion of On Hing Terrace in Central, Hong Kong. The plaintiffs are the registered owners of the land, which includes Ivy House, a new staircase, and a platform forming part of On Hing Terrace, generally used as a public street. The 1st defendant's parents operated a hawker stall on the new staircase from approximately 1963/64 to 1985, claiming to have acquired possessory title through adverse possession. The disputes involving the 2nd and 3rd defendants, who also operated hawker stalls, were settled before trial. The case primarily addresses the plaintiffs' claim for possession against the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant's counterclaim for adverse possession. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the 1st defendant's parents had acquired adverse possession of the land occupied by their hawker stall. The plaintiffs argued that the 1st defendant's parents occupied the land as government licensees, not in their own right, thus precluding adverse possession. The plaintiffs also contended that various contraventions of regulations and licence conditions (illegality) should bar the adverse possession claim. The 1st defendant maintained that his parents had sufficient factual possession and intention to possess the land continuously for the statutory period. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that the 1st defendant's parents occupied the land from 1963/64 to 1985 as government licensees under hawker licences, not in their own right. According to established legal principles, occupation by a licensee is considered occupation by the licensor, which does not constitute adverse possession. Furthermore, the judge found that even without the licence issue, their occupation was for a special or limited purpose (hawking) under stringent restrictions, failing to meet the requirements for "factual possession" and "intention to possess" for adverse possession. The judge concluded that the 1st defendant failed to prove his parents intended to exclude the paper owner and the world at large. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several key precedents on adverse possession: - Shine Empire Ltd v Incorporated Owners of San Po Kong Mansion [2006] 4 HKLRD 1 (affirmed by the Court of Final Appeal, (2007) 10 HKCFAR 588), which outlined the two basic elements of adverse possession: factual possession and intention to possess. - Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P&CR 452 (approved in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419), providing detailed criteria for factual possession and animus possidendi. - Brazil v Brazil [2005] All ER (D) 311 (Mar) and Sze To Chun Keung v Kung Kwok Wai David & anor [1997] 1 WLR 1232, establishing that occupation by a licensee, even if the licensor is not the true owner, does not count as adverse possession. - Wu Chee Ling v Urban Council [1996] 3 HKC 230, which discussed the Urban Council's power to issue hawker licences on private land with the owner's consent. ### Decision & Orders The court allowed the plaintiffs' claims against the 1st defendant, ordering possession of the relevant portion of the New Staircase. The 1st defendant's counterclaims against the plaintiffs and the 2nd and 3rd defendants were dismissed. The 2nd and 3rd defendants' counterclaim against the 1st defendant was also dismissed. The 1st defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs, including costs for two counsel, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants' costs for defending the 1st defendant's counterclaim. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were ordered to pay the 1st defendant's costs for defending their counterclaim up to the commencement of trial. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that adverse possession requires occupation "in one's own right" and not as a licensee. Even if the government is not the landowner, its hawker licences render the occupier a licensee, thereby precluding an adverse possession claim. The judgment also highlights that occupation for strictly regulated activities like hawking, under stringent restrictions, typically fails to satisfy the rigorous requirements for "factual possession" and "intention to possess." The judge did not definitively rule on whether illegality would bar an adverse possession claim but suggested the nature and seriousness of the alleged unlawful conduct in this case might not be sufficient for an absolute bar. --- ### 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.