Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse possession

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

GREAT CITY ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG MAY KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 637
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3406/2023

The 2nd Defendant's proposed grounds of appeal are without reasonable prospect of success because the trial judge correctly found on contemporaneous documents, expert and factual evidence that the plaintiffs had factual possession (enclosure sufficed) and the requisite intention to possess; the proposed challenges merely re‑argue or dispute findings of fact which are not plainly wrong, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
28 Apr 2026

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PAK TAT MANSION v. TANG KEE TONG trading as CHILI KING

Citation

[2026] HKLdT 26
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM114/2023

The Tribunal found that Man was the IO’s licensed payor of licence fees and that the respondent occupied by licence/sub‑licence or under arrangements demonstrating willingness to pay; payment and the 2021 tenancy agreement objectively rebutted animus possidendi and therefore respondent failed to prove adverse possession. Equitable defences failed because respondent did not establish the required representation, knowledge by IO, or sufficient detriment and there was no laches. Consequently IO was not time‑barred under Limitation Ordinance and was entitled to relief (vacant possession, mandator…
13 Apr 2026

P v. D1 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 560
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ811/2020

The Notice of Severance and the Deed of Gift are void because D1 lacked the mental capacity in September 2018 to understand, retain and weigh information necessary to execute those documents (as established by contemporaneous Hospital Authority records and reliable expert psychiatric evidence). Consequently P's CICT and adverse possession claims fail for lack of evidential basis, particularly absence of detrimental reliance and intention to exclude, and D2's counterclaim founded on validity of the instruments fails. The court has jurisdiction to vacate any registered instruments and directs s…
8 Apr 2026

YUENG KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN KINGDOM INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 609
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3085/2025

The Plaintiffs failed to prove factual exclusive possession and the requisite intention for the statutory 12‑year period because the Subject Land was accessible to the public via Route 1 from 2000 until at least 2011 and material enclosure features (notably GA3) only appeared circa 2012; accordingly adverse possession was not established and the claim is dismissed.
2 Apr 2026

HO WAI KEUNG v. THE OCCUPIERS AND EVERY OTHER PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NOS. 534, 535 & 536 IN D.D. 84 & LOT NOS. 460RP & 463RP IN D.D. 87

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1937
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP487/2021

The 2nd Defendant failed to prove exclusive continuous possession for 12 years. Credible evidence established fencing/hoardings only from 2020; other pleaded acts (cultivation, sheep rearing, well, wooden canopy, long tenancy, levelling, electricity paid by respondent) were not established. Accordingly the counterclaim for adverse possession is dismissed; the registered owner is entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits and nominal damages; costs on High Court scale.
24 Mar 2026

TAI KANG YING v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LESLIE FREDERICK CHARLES GUYATT, DECEASED

Citation

[2026] HKDC 482
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3019/2024

The court refused to grant the declaratory relief sought by default judgment because the pleaded facts were insufficient to establish adverse possession and the requisite intention to possess; declarations of title based on unproven allegations in default of defence are inappropriate where factual issues (tenancy, actual occupation, acknowledgements, possible heirs) require investigation at trial. Procedural concerns about service and representation of the deceased's estate further counsel against entering declaratory judgment on the pleadings alone.
13 Mar 2026

MAN CHUNG LAP v. MAN SHUI TONG WUI with MAN PING-NAME and MAN TAI-SANG as Managers

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1736/2024

Where a business tong includes a tso as a member, members of that tso hold direct equitable interests in the properties of the business tong and therefore each birth of a new tso member creates a new equitable interest that restarts the limitation period under the Limitation Ordinance; consequently Leung Kuen Fai applies to business tongs with tso members and a claimant cannot establish adverse possession as a matter of law if the requisite limitation period has not run against all living beneficial owners.
6 Mar 2026

CHUNG LOI KIU by her next friend, LAU CHING MAN v. LAU YIP HUNG

Citation

[2026] HKDC 386
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3999/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge correctly applied the legal tests for factual possession and animus possidendi, his findings of fact were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong, and his discretionary exclusion of the hearsay witness statement was proper and would not have affected the outcome.
20 Feb 2026

CHIANG LI WEI v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALHAMBRA BUILDING

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 569
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL142/2026

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law ground on the prescribed form, failed to make full and frank disclosure of the impugned decision, the dispute was essentially a private law matter not amenable to judicial review, and the application was time-barred (filed more than three years after the impugned judgment) with no satisfactory explanation for delay.
16 Feb 2026

HO KWOK WA v. WONG SOOK JIN

Citation

[2026] HKDC 302
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1370/2024

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff and predecessor demonstrated continuous and exclusive physical control (enclosure, structures, utilities, use and payment of expenses) together with an intention to possess the Blue Land to the exclusion of the registered owner for a period exceeding 12 years, thereby extinguishing the defendant's title under the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347); procedural rules permitting omission of service in default of acknowledgement of service justified proceeding in the defendant's absence, so default judgment and declarations were properly granted.