Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declaration of rights

Legal area

Court

21 Jan 2025

LAU CHUNG v. HUI KENG YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 359
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA561/2019

The court accepted the 1st defendant's evidence that the plaintiff made a promise she could reside in the Kennedy Town Property rent‑free for life, concluded she relied on that promise to her detriment (including contributing funds), found she had not unequivocally waived that right in 2018, dismissed the plaintiff's application to restore his struck out claim, and granted a declaration of life residence rent‑free and an order for possession in favour of the 1st defendant.
30 Oct 2024

LIN LOI HING v. The Personal Representative of LIN LOK SHI also known as LOK KIU (deceased)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3056
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1330/2013

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff demonstrated continuous factual possession and intention to possess the whole lot to the exclusion of the 1st Defendant since at least August 1980, an ouster was properly presumed, the statutory period had elapsed so the deceased's proprietary title to her 50% share was extinguished under s17 Limitation Ordinance, and a declaratory possessory title to that 50% share was properly granted on the default judgment application.
9 Sept 2024

王議瑩對葉耀錦及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1422
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5080/2021

The court found the plaintiff had clear, open and continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the rooftop unit from 9 December 2003; under the Limitation Ordinance plaintiff acquired possessory rights by 9 December 2015 and the registered owner lost the right to recover possession; the second defendant unlawfully locked and occupied the unit from 10 August 2018 with the first defendant's authorization such that both defendants were jointly and severally liable for plaintiff's losses; plaintiff awarded HK$302,000 plus interest and costs.
23 Oct 2019

SETO YIM KING v. SOO HOOYET DEW

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2640
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA934/2017

The plaintiff demonstrated on the face of the amended statement of claim that she had been in continuous and exclusive possession of the clearly delineated residential flat for at least 20 years prior to the Limitation (Amendment) Ordinance 1991 and the commencement of proceedings, substituted service was properly effected, and accordingly the defendant's legal title was extinguished under section 17 Limitation Ordinance so that the plaintiff is entitled to possessory title by adverse possession; however an order for registration was not appropriate at this stage.
20 Dec 2018

SPRUCE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v. NEW SENJIA TRADE LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 101
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2292/2018

The court will proceed to consider and may grant default judgment on the monetary and proprietary claims where the plaintiff appears entitled on the statement of claim, but declarations of legal right (including imposition of a constructive trust) are discretionary and generally require full argument and trial; the court must exercise caution before making such declarations in default.
5 May 2014

LI GUOZHU v. MA HONGQI AND OTHERS

Citation

LI GUOZHU v. MA HONGQI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2023/2009

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant a final declaratory judgment against the 11th defendant because the company was a nominal defendant with no pleaded cause of action, parallel proceedings in the PRC concerned the same issues making a final local declaration inappropriate, and the existing interlocutory injunction adequately protected the plaintiff so there was no genuine need for the declaration.
4 Mar 2011

WONG KWAN YEE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF DIAMOND MANSION (NOS. 466 468, LOCKHART ROAD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KWAN YEE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF DIAMOND MANSION (NOS. 466 468, LOCKHART ROAD) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2576/2007

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the opening existed from at least March 1965 and was used sufficiently to establish an easement by long user; the defendant failed to prove the opening was illegal or that the plaintiff abandoned the easement; accordingly a declaration of right of way was granted but mandatory reinstatement was refused and enforcement of remedial works was left to the Building Authority under s24 of the Buildings Ordinance.
30 Jun 1995

FAIRFAX LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

FAIRFAX LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV114/1995

Although the covenant is properly construed as restricting development to "one or more villa residences only" (thus apt to preclude the proposed multi-storey building), the undisputed evidence showed an open, notorious and prolonged course of breaches across Inland Lot No.757 over decades, consistently tolerated by the Crown without seeking premiums; on those facts the only proper inference is that the Crown abandoned or released its right to enforce the covenant as to the lot, entitling the tenant to redevelop without the landlord's consent.
31 Oct 1986

WONG KWOK CHIANG AND OTHERS v. LONGO CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KWOK CHIANG AND OTHERS v. LONGO CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/1986

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in giving excessive weight to the appellants' wrongful conduct and insufficient weight to the adequacy of damages, delay and apparent abandonment by the plaintiffs and the availability of alternative remedies (including proposal to grant rights over the new system); therefore mandatory relief and a declaration were inappropriate on the material before the judge and were set aside.
11 Dec 1969

ALEC RUDGE AND ANOTHER v. KO GRA YU AND OTHERS

Citation

ALEC RUDGE AND ANOTHER v. KO GRA YU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1577/1968

The scheme (Exhibit A8) was a domestic, tentative and uncertain arrangement not intended to create legal relations or a partnership; therefore it was not a binding contract or partnership; plaintiffs remained sole managers and controllers of the school and were entitled to an account and judgment for monies due ($3,573.35); counterclaim dismissed; interlocutory injunctions to remain in force.