[2025] HKCA 898, the Plaintiffs are the court-appointed professional administrators of the deceased’s estate, a major asset of which is a property at No 15 Robinson Road. The 3

 Defendant (a son of the deceased) and 11

 Defendant (who claims to be the “god-son” of another son of the deceased) occupy respectively two apartments and one apartment in the property.

The Plaintiffs sought vacant possession of those apartments and an order for the sale of the property so as to complete the administration of the deceased’s estate. The 3

 Defendants asserted that they were entitled to occupy the respective apartments by reason of (among other things) having been in adverse possession for the requisite period.

The Plaintiffs were successful at first instance before Bebe Chu J ([2024] HKCFI 645). The 3

 Defendants appealed, advancing in total some 20 grounds and proposed grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal (Chu VP, Au and Chow JJA) dismissed both appeals.

Chow JA, giving the reasons for judgment of the Court, held the 3

 because none of his grounds challenged the Judge’s conclusion that there was no evidence from him to support his adverse possession claim. In any event, his various grounds of appeal were without merit. The 11

 Defendant’s grounds of appeal, which included various allegations of bias (against the Plaintiffs as administrators) and procedural impropriety, were also rejected in their entirety. The Plaintiffs were awarded costs on an indemnity basis.

, instructed by Stephenson Harwood, acted for the Plaintiffs.

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Appeal against order for vacant possession and administrators’ sale of property of an estate dismissed

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New