top of page
  • Candice Mak






  • 上訴法庭或原訟法庭(視屬何情況而定)證明有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點,(如較下級法院拒絕作出證明,終審法院本身仍可作出有關證明)或

  • 顯示可合理地爭辯曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況。



Chief Justice Cheung:

1. I agree with the joint judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Gummow NPJ.

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Gummow NPJ:

2. There has reached this Court litigation commenced by the Appellant (“P”) in 2012. It concerns family disputes respecting two parcels of land located in the Sha Kok Mei Village (“the Village”), Sai Kung, in the New Territories. The Cheung family are indigenous inhabitants of the Village. The land law in the New Territories in 1898 and its subsequent development provides the background to the issues in this litigation and has been traced in Winfat Enterprises (HK) Co Ltd v A-G [1983] HKLR 211, and on appeal [1985] 1 AC 733 at 744.

3. The first dispute relates to the parcel (“the Disputed Land”) being Lot 1101 in Demarcation District 221. The principal issues in this Court concern equitable doctrine and remedies, in particular the existence and incidents of proprietary estoppel in favour of the Third Respondent (“D3”).

4. The second dispute concerns Lot 774 on which a house is erected (“House 774”). House 774 is about two minutes walking distance from the Disputed Land. The First and Second Respondents (“D1” and “D2”) together hold a 1/3 undivided share in the land. P was born in 1960 (adopted in 1961). She grew up in House 774 and lives there with her daughter and granddaughter on the ground floor. She derives rental income from the other two floors. The trial judge ordered that P pay to D1 and D2 1/3 of that rental income from 1997 (the year of the death of P’s father) and 1/3 of the mesne profits from 1997 in respect of the ground floor.

Question 1

2 次查看0 則留言
bottom of page