File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Demystifying the doctrine of encroachment
Title | Demystifying the doctrine of encroachment |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2012 |
Citation | Hong Kong Law Journal, 2012, v. 42, n. 3, p. 687-700 How to Cite? |
Abstract | The doctrine of encroachment is generally regarded as an obscure and confused doctrine. The enigma is particularly acute where a tenant encroaches upon the landlord's other lands. In Secretary of Justice v Chau Ka Chik Tso, the Court of Final Appeal was divided as to how the doctrine may coexist with our understanding of how adverse possession normally operates. This note examines the reasons of both the majority and the minority and seeks to explain why, despite its novelty, the majority's reasoning is to be preferred. Despite the majority's hesitation, it also endorses Ribeiro PJ's rejection of the controversial "no adding - up rule" that is thought to limit the doctrine's application. In the process, it also suggests that the Hong Kong courts reflect upon some other aspects of both the doctrine of encroachment and the doctrine of adverse possession. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/345205 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.3 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.112 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Low, Kelvin F.K. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-15T09:25:53Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-08-15T09:25:53Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Hong Kong Law Journal, 2012, v. 42, n. 3, p. 687-700 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0378-0600 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/345205 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The doctrine of encroachment is generally regarded as an obscure and confused doctrine. The enigma is particularly acute where a tenant encroaches upon the landlord's other lands. In Secretary of Justice v Chau Ka Chik Tso, the Court of Final Appeal was divided as to how the doctrine may coexist with our understanding of how adverse possession normally operates. This note examines the reasons of both the majority and the minority and seeks to explain why, despite its novelty, the majority's reasoning is to be preferred. Despite the majority's hesitation, it also endorses Ribeiro PJ's rejection of the controversial "no adding - up rule" that is thought to limit the doctrine's application. In the process, it also suggests that the Hong Kong courts reflect upon some other aspects of both the doctrine of encroachment and the doctrine of adverse possession. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Hong Kong Law Journal | - |
dc.title | Demystifying the doctrine of encroachment | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84874344693 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 42 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 3 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 687 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 700 | - |