The District Court granted possessory title by adverse possession over the Lots, rejected illegality and public policy defences, and dismissed the counterclaim.
The Lands Tribunal held that the respondent’s occupation of a common area was not adverse possession, rejected equity-based defences, and ordered vacant possession and mesne profits.
The High Court allowed amendment of a legal-fees claim in part, rejecting strike-out, but refused fraud amendments for lack of affidavit support for service out.
The District Court dismissed an adverse possession claim over a garden strip, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove exclusive possession and the required intention for 12 years.
The District Court refused default declaratory relief in an adverse possession claim, holding the pleaded facts were too skeletal and needed trial proof.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the defendant’s appeal, allowed most proposed pleading amendments, and held the pre-July 2019 investment-related pleas could proceed.
The strike‑out and refusal of relief were mandated because the pleaded claim was time‑barred under DDO s82(1) and Limitation law, the aspects directed at the successor corporate defendant were barred by res judicata (prior final determination in DCEO 5/2009), the claim against the website operator constituted an abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson principle) with no realistic prospect of success, the claimant failed to establish an appropriate defined representative class, recusal and anonymity were unsupported, and costs and a restrictive litigation order were justified by repeated, unme…
Default judgment was granted in an adverse possession claim over part of a Yuen Long lot, with declarations extinguishing the defendant’s title and awarding costs.
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.