We act for the Plaintiff and have successfully set aside an order for possessory title (the “Order”) that was obtained by fraud by the 1st Defendant in a District Court action commenced in 2000 (the “DCMP Action”) and a Consent Summons that was entered into between our client and the 1st Defendant (the “Consent Summons”) in a subsequent District Court action commenced in 2009 (the “DCCJ Action”) under a mistake of fact, after going through an 8-day trial this year.

Our client is the actual occupier of the subject lands in New Territories (the “Premises”). However, unknown to our client, the Order was obtained and made in favour of the 1st Defendant in DCMP Action, whereby the 1st Defendant (the personal representative of the original Plaintiff in DCMP Action) alleged that the original Plaintiff and/or her family (including the 1st Defendant) had been in possession and occupation of the Premises for the requisite period of time and had therefore thereby obtained a possessory title to the Premises. Upon obtaining the Order based on such fraudulent representations to the Court, the 1st Defendant further commenced the DCCJ Action against our client seeking for rent, again making fraudulent allegation that he had become the registered owner of the Premises and was entitled to rent from our client. The Consent Summons was signed by our client (who was without legal representation at that time) in such circumstances by mistake, and was peculiarly found by the Court to have never been filed by the 1st Defendant in the DCCJ Action in the end.

Near a decade was passed after the discovery of the 1st Defendant’s fraud, the going through of an application to join as party in the DCMP Action, and the commencement of these proceedings to formally set aside the Order and Consent Summons, our client gave evidence of his actual possession of the Premises in Court during trial, which the Court found to be credible and reliable, resulting in the judgment that both the Order and the Consent Summons were set aside by fraud and/or mistake of fact, as well as an order that indemnity costs be awarded in favour of our client.

The case was handled by our Partners Mr. Tommy Tam and Ms. Jenny Wong, assisted by our Associates, Ms. Theresa Law (at early stage when she was a trainee solicitor) and Ms. Koey Wong, and our Trainee Mr. Manson Chan.