Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Boundary dispute

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2025

KENWELL LTD v. SAFETY GONDOLA LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5894
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1494/2024

Defendant failed to produce direct evidence or particularised affidavits to establish a bona fide triable defence to the plaintiff’s claim to possession under the registered 2023 tenancy; reliance on unverified correspondence and unregistered sub‑tenancy was insufficient; boundary and possession arguments were unparticularised or unsupported, therefore summary judgment should be upheld and the appeal dismissed.
31 Mar 2025

CHAU TAT WING, suing in his own capacity and as the sole executor of the estate of WONG TIM LUN, deceased v. WONG KWAI WAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 517
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3244/2022

The court corrected the omission in the Judgment to record and enforce the 1st defendant's counterclaim for vacant possession because the boundary is determined by the Director of Lands' maintained records (the 2012 Survey Plan) under the LSO; the plaintiff's claims against D1 and D2 were misconceived because disputes about survey accuracy should be pursued against the authorised land surveyor under clause 28 LSO; the sanctioned payment stood and must be paid out; the plaintiff's conduct and baseless cause of action justified indemnity costs and an award of enhanced interest.
4 Mar 2025

WONG HON WING (黃漢榮), WONG WAI SUN (黃維新) and WONG MAN HING (黃文興) as managers of WONG TUNG I or Yi Tong (alias TUNG YI TONG) (黃同義堂) (別名同義堂) 對PERSON(S) UNKNOWN in occupation of the area known as or referred as Sub-Section 4 of Section A of Lot No. 2039 and the Remaining Portion of Section A of Lot No. 2039 in both Demarcation District No. 120, Yuen Long, New Territories 及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 334
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1263/2020

The court refused leave because the pleaded defence and counterclaim sufficiently disclosed an adverse possession case, plaintiffs and their counsel had clear notice and engaged with that issue at trial, the evidence (including witness testimony and aerial material) supported a finding of exclusive adverse possession notwithstanding absence of fencing, and consequently the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success; the stay was refused because no irreparable prejudice from execution was established.
5 Nov 2024

SO LAI HA YVONNE v. HO TIM TAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1858
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5169/2019

Weighing the official Lot Index Plan and DD Control Sheet together with the experts' joint report and the likelihood of rebuilding under common historical ownership, the court found part of House No.35A lies within Lot 426; the plaintiff's exclusive occupation of PA1 since 1994 satisfied the requirements for adverse possession so possessory title vested from 2006 and a prescriptive right of way over PA2 vested from 2014; the 1st defendant's application to adduce late expert evidence was dismissed for inordinate delay and prejudice, and the claimant's declarations and costs orders were therefo…
9 Sept 2024

WONG HON WING (黃漢榮), WONG WAI SUN (黃維新) and WONG MAN HING (黃文興) as managers of WONG TUNG I or Yi Tong (alias TUNG YI TONG) (黃同義堂) (別名同義堂) 對PERSON(S) UNKNOWN in occupation of the area known as or referred as Sub-Section 4 of Section A of Lot No. 2039 and the Remaining Portion of Section A of Lot No. 2039 in both Demarcation District No. 120, Yuen Long, New Territories 及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1477
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1263/2020

The court accepted plaintiffs' survey evidence (2011 plan and 2017 Lands Department index) that the disputed area forms part of Lot No. 2039 S.A. ss4 and RP and rejected the respondent's competing maps and s25 inference for lack of probative expert evidence; concurrently the court found the second defendant proved continuous, exclusive possession with requisite intention from 1984 for at least 20 years (indeed over 35 years), thereby acquiring possessory title which extinguished the plaintiffs' rights by 2004; consequential declarations and orders for return of vacant possession and nominal d…
28 Mar 2024

VALSALAN IVY VIMALA v. CASTKA RICHARD PATRICK JOSEF AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 912
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2668/2018

Tiles laid on the ground were not proven to be reliable surveyed occupations; applying the Code of Practice principles the court adopted Chan's earlier survey as authoritative; the fence encroaches into section H by 0.080 metres and must be demolished to that extent; defendants to pay plaintiff's costs on a party-and-party basis assessed at HK$588,475.67.
28 Mar 2024

TSANG KUN KAU AND ANOTHER v. YU YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 508
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2335/2012

On the whole of expert aerial evidence, contemporaneous SCO records, utility records, photographs and reliable oral testimony, the court found the four squatter huts and related works were located within Lot 93 and were erected and used by the 1st Defendant since c.1983 (and occupation activities from 1978). The 1st Defendant demonstrated factual possession and intention to possess; the plaintiffs’ licence argument was an unpleaded point and in any event did not displace the adverse nature of possession as against the registered owner. Accordingly adverse possession for at least 20 years was…
23 Jan 2024

WORKWISE CORPORATION v. THE OCCUPIER(S) of Lot No.250, Section A of Lot No.251, Sub-Section 2 and Sub-Section 3 of Section B of Lot No.251, The Remaining Portion of Section B of Lot No.251, The Remaining Portion of Lot No.265 and Lot No.266 all in Demarcation District No.111, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 78
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP258/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant's proposed grounds (1–3) lacked reasonable prospects: there was no evidence anyone occupied the Remaining Land or basis to order possession against the 1st Defendant; the discrepancy between the RAD&C Plan and the Possessed Area was not a material departure and caused no prejudice; and the judge's factual findings about the fences and possession since 1976 were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong. No other interest of justice warranted hearing the appeal.
17 Dec 2021

CHAN CHEUK WING v. CHAN SUM WING

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1591
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1291/2015

The defendant failed to discharge the legal burden of proving animus possidendi for adverse possession. The evidence and contemporaneous documents (father's letters, C1/C3 letters, WhatsApp messages, family testimony) showed the defendant occupied House 2 with permission first from the Father and after 1991 with the plaintiff's permission (oral licence), undermining exclusivity required for adverse possession; the late application to amend pleadings to raise an unpleaded 'confusion' point was refused for being inconsistent with pleadings and prejudicial. Consequently plaintiff's claim for pos…
26 Feb 2019

IP WAN FAT AND OTHERS v. KING UNION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 226
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV542/2018

The Order 14A summons was rightly dismissed because the boundary dispute raised factual issues (including the accuracy and relevance of competing plans) that required expert and viva voce evidence and could not be resolved summarily; the defendants' proposed grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was struck out.