Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Easement

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2026

KIU LOK SERVICE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD v. MIGHTYTON LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 796
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2307/2025

There is a serious issue to be tried that the Club Houses are common parts and that owners have quasi-easements or easements to use them; the denial of access causes irremediable non-financial prejudice (security, management, quality of life) which damages cannot adequately remedy; the risk of CSPO prosecution does not outweigh the prejudice to owners; on balance of convenience the mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring Defendant to deliver vacant possession of the Club Houses to the Plaintiff and to cease interference should be granted pending determination of the Originating Summons,…
7 May 2025

SINO UNION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHIP LEE BUILDING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1775
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1415/2023

The court accepted that the DMC and first assignments grant a right of access but held that such rights in a multi-unit DMC context are subject to an element of reasonableness; having assessed the mixed commercial/residential use, evidence of long-standing gate practice, security concerns, mitigations and limited effectiveness arguments, the gate as maintained falls within a reasonable range and therefore does not wrongfully interfere with the right; the Defendant is entitled to maintain the Metal Gate under the Building Management Ordinance; there was no binding waiver, estoppel or abandonme…
28 Oct 2024

SO KWAI CHUNG V. WONG WAI YING ANITA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 28
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV101/2024

The Appeal Committee granted leave because the two framed questions concerning the capacity of proprietary estoppel and acquiescence to create or bind co‑owners with respect to easements are of requisite importance to warrant a final hearing.
2 Oct 2024

SO LAI HA YVONNE v. HO TIM TAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1643
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5169/2019

The consent summons was dismissed because declaratory relief cannot be granted solely by consent without necessity to do justice, paragraphs 2–4 were properly deleted from the re-re-amended writ (precluding the requested paper-title declarations), and the substantive issues in paragraph 1 overlap with matters reserved for trial against the 1st defendant so the consent summons is inappropriate and would prejudice the trial.
29 Nov 2023

DOUBLE PROOF LTD v. HO KWOK WING

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1742
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5753/2019

The court refused relief from the unless order and dismissed the application to adduce new evidence because the defendant failed to show reasonable diligence in obtaining the material, the new material lacked sufficient relevance and credibility and would undermine fair procedure; accordingly the costs variation, leave to appeal and stay applications failed for lack of reasonable prospects and absence of good reasons, and indemnity costs were awarded for the unmeritorious summonses.
5 Dec 2022

WONG WAI YING ANITA AND OTHERS v. SO KWAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2580/2018

2nd Defendant made an assurance to the plaintiffs which they relied upon to their detriment and used the defendants' land as the only practical vehicular access for over a decade; proprietary estoppel therefore arose creating an equity enforceable against the defendants including the 1st Defendant in the circumstances of this case; implied easement by necessity failed because there was no common ownership of the two plots at the material time; appropriate relief is a declaration of an easement of right of way and an injunction restraining interference.
21 Oct 2022

LEADING WELL LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (on behalf of the Director of Lands)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1266/2019

Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of any specific instrument by or by virtue of which an express right of way over Shatin Heights Road was granted; the New Grant contained no such grant, any site plans were not attached or were equivocal, permits and approvals related only to construction and did not constitute grants, clause 2 of Schedule B did not itself create the specific easement claimed, and the doctrine of lost modern grant cannot be used to manufacture an express grant under an instrument; accordingly the claim was dismissed.
28 May 2021

CHENG SING KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KA HAY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2164/2013

Plaintiffs failed to establish proprietary estoppel, implied grant or that the 2005/2006 Deeds conferred vehicular rights; the 2006 Deed did not cover the whole route and could not be construed to create the vehicular easement claimed; the 2005 Deed was a grant to Sino Favour only; necessity did not apply; plaintiffs have a pedestrian easement over the Main Gate (Lots 485RP, 482P and 482O) but no vehicular easement; the 12th defendant's counterclaim for management fees failed because the 2006 Management Agreement required written authorisation from the MAC to commence legal proceedings and no…
5 Jun 2020

KING POLICY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WAN KIN SHING

Citation

[2020] HKCA 428
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV107/2018

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings rejecting the existence of the 2006 and 2007 agreements and any estoppel arising from the March 2015 encounters, held that prescriptive easement was not distinctly pleaded and therefore could not be relied on, and concluded there was no basis to disturb the judgment below; appeal dismissed.