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 held that the plaintiff proved adverse possession of the property, so the defendants’ titles were extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance.
The District Court held that the defendant had acquired adverse possession of a common staircase area in Kam Luk Building, dismissing the owners’ claim.
The court rejected defendants' versions of the 29 Jan 2000 and 6 Dec 2008 minutes as forged and held there was no valid owners' meeting approval for committee allowances; D1, D2 and D4 were fiduciaries/trustees for the corporation and liable to repay the unauthorised committee allowances and specified unauthorised expenses; most long‑distance telephone charges of D1 were private and repayable; D3 was not a committee member or fiduciary and had rendered secretary services so the claim against D3 was dismissed; Limitation Ordinance s20(1)(b) preserves claims against trustees and the claims agai…
Source excerpt
Claim dismissed and action struck out because the claimant delayed approximately 12 years and failed to produce expert evidence that satisfies the Bolam standard and the causation test, leaving no basis for the court to exercise its discretionary power under s30 to extend time.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance granted a declaration of adverse possession, finding the plaintiff had occupied the property exclusively for over 20 years after an oral tenancy ended.
The Court of First Instance refused to extend time under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, holding that no good reason was shown for the late writ.
Summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff in an adverse possession and trespass dispute over land in Tsuen Wan. The court held the defendant’s title was extinguished.
The court granted declarations that two old mortgages were unenforceable under section 19 of the Limitation Ordinance, after finding the lots had been unoccupied since at least 1989.
The Lands Tribunal held that an amended compensation claim was served out of time and barred under section 28(1), with no estoppel or valid extension application established.
The Court of Final Appeal held that overstaying under the Immigration Ordinance is a continuing offence and the prosecution was not time-barred.
Explore more
