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 a landlord leave to dispose of uncollected goods left after repossession, holding the owner had taken reasonable steps to notify potential claimants.
Leave to appeal was granted in a Small Claims Tribunal appeal over allegedly consequential losses from conversion, including fixed penalties and costs.
The court held that the defendant proved adverse possession of Lot 84. The plaintiff’s claims for vacant possession, injunction and damages were dismissed.
The court entered default judgment for the registered owner, ordering vacant possession of the Orange Area and injunctions restraining further trespass and interference.
The court rejected a claimed public right of way and prescription-based easement over Pak Lok Path, and upheld the defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory relief and an injunction.
The District Court granted summary judgment for possession and trespass, rejecting the defendants’ claimed sub-tenancy and dismissing their injunction application.
The defendant's exclusive long-term occupation of D shop constituted an ouster of the other co-owners; plaintiffs were not barred by acquiescence; the expert valuation assessing total rent for the period 1 October 2014 to 2 September 2020 was reliable and adopted; defendant's distinction between himself and his company was rejected; plaintiffs each are entitled to 1/6 of the assessed occupancy fees and interest from 28 September 2020 until payment.
Source excerpt
District Court held the 2nd defendant failed to prove adverse possession of the Land and Premises. The counterclaim was dismissed, and vacant possession and nominal mesne profits were ordered.
The court held that Yu Pak Kan proved exclusive possession and animus possidendi over the disputed Portion, granting possessory title and dismissing the defendant’s claim.
The Court of First Instance continued an interlocutory injunction until trial and ordered costs against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, but costs between the plaintiffs and 1st defendant were to be in the cause.
Explore more
