Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The District Court granted possessory title by adverse possession over the Lots, rejected illegality and public policy defences, and dismissed the counterclaim.
香港土地審裁處在本案批准強制售賣申請，認定樓宇老舊失修、重建有理據，並裁定申請人已符合法定比例及已作出合理收購嘗試。
District Court case on vacant possession and adverse possession of a Kowloon flat, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove a tenancy and the second defendant proved adverse possession.
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal in an adverse possession dispute over rooftop land, finding no arguable error in the trial judge’s factual findings or reasoning.
The Court of First Instance granted default judgment, declaring beneficial ownership of a Hong Kong flat in the plaintiff executrix and making a vesting order under the Trustee Ordinance.
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge reasonably construed the second defendant's pleaded case as including adverse possession; the pleadings and evidence sufficiently disclosed the elements and time-frame for adverse possession and limitation; the trial judge's factual findings on exclusive possession were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; and there was no proper basis to disturb case management or factual determinations on appeal.
Source excerpt
The District Court resolved competing adverse possession claims over the same Hong Kong lots, holding that Cheung Kwai Chun succeeded and Law Wai Fong did not.
The District Court refused leave to appeal and a stay of execution, holding the proposed grounds challenged factual findings and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success.
Defendants failed to prove continuous exclusive possession and the requisite animus for 12 years: objective contemporaneous evidence (notably government aerial photographs and survey records) established that substantive renovation and occupation by defendants began in 2006, so the statutory period was not satisfied. Consequently plaintiffs, as registered owners, are entitled to vacant possession and defendants' counterclaims fail.
Source excerpt
The District Court rejected a plaintiff’s adverse possession claim over four units in Smiling Plaza, finding his evidence of exclusive possession and intention to possess unreliable.
Explore more
