File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Demystifying the doctrine of encroachment

TitleDemystifying the doctrine of encroachment
Authors
Issue Date2012
Citation
Hong Kong Law Journal, 2012, v. 42, n. 3, p. 687-700 How to Cite?
AbstractThe 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/345205
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 0.3
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.112

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLow, Kelvin F.K.-
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-15T09:25:53Z-
dc.date.available2024-08-15T09:25:53Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Law Journal, 2012, v. 42, n. 3, p. 687-700-
dc.identifier.issn0378-0600-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/345205-
dc.description.abstractThe 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.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofHong Kong Law Journal-
dc.titleDemystifying the doctrine of encroachment-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84874344693-
dc.identifier.volume42-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage687-
dc.identifier.epage700-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats