| 单词 | Presumption of lost grant |
| 释义 | 遺失授權的推定 A legal fiction under which the English courts presume a grant of title to an easement where the alleged owner of the dominant tenement, in more recent times after 1189, can prove enjoyment of the right of way for 20 years: Dalton v Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740 (HL). This presumption can be rebutted by showing that at some time during the 20 years of user, no person was capable of making or receiving the grant: Oakley v Boston [1976] QB 270. In Hong Kong, this form of prescription cannot operate because it is not possible for rights to have existed in Hong Kong before 1189 under common law, and the doctrine in England clearly requires the grant to be made by fee simple owner of the servient tenement to the fee simple owner of the dominant tenement. The doctrine would have applied due to the Application of English Law Ordinance (Cap 88) (repealed) if the doctrine of prescription was modified to take into account the fact that land in Hong Kong is held by leasehold and not fee simple: Chung Yeung Hung v Law Man Nga (t/a Constant Rich Investment Co) [1997] HKLRD 1022, 2 HKC 406 (CA). Nevertheless, since the Ordinance has been repealed, such doctrine is no longer applicable in Hong Kong. See also Prescription. 法律假定。英國法庭推定授予地役權, 如主要物業單位的指稱業主, 在1189年後的較近時間 ,可證明享有通行權20年: Dalton v Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740 （上議院）。如證明使用者在20年間的若干時間無人能作出或收取授權, 則可反駁此推定: Oakley v Boston [1976] QB 270。但此方式的時效歸益權在香港不能實施, 因為在普通法, 1189年以前存在的權利不可能在香港存在, 而英國的原則清楚地要求要由供役地的無條件繼承之土地財產業主向主要物業單位的無條件繼承之土地財產業主作出授權。如時效歸益權的原則被修改而顧及香港土地是批租土地而非無條件繼承的事實, 會因為《英國法律應用條例》（第88章）（已廢除）而適用: Chung Yeung Hung v Law Man Nga (t/a Constant Rich Investment Co) [1997] HKLRD 1022, 2 HKC 406。雖然如此, 鑒於法例已被廢除, 此規則不再適用於香港。另見 Prescription。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。