Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Easement by prescription

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 2025

CHAN LOI SUN AND OTHERS v. CHAN YUET（OR YUT）WO TSO with CHAN KAM WAI as Manager AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 263
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1699/2023

The summons was dismissed because P1 and P3 lacked requisite locus standi as non-registered owners to claim a proprietary easement, no easement of necessity existed because pedestrian access remained and alternatives existed, and damages (including modest licence fees) constituted an adequate remedy such that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction; accordingly the undertakings were discharged and costs ordered to defendants.
27 Apr 2022

HO KWOK MING v. WONG HUNG HO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 370
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5031/2021

The court was satisfied there is a high degree of assurance that the plaintiff will establish at trial a right of way or a prescriptive easement over the Lot 965 Path, that irreparable harm (including risk to medical emergencies) would result if the injunction were refused and that the balance of convenience favours granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reopen the Lot 965 Path within 14 days; fortification was not justified and damages would be an adequate protection for defendant if wronged.
16 Jan 2020

ASIAN WELL TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. LEE YEE MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV595/2018

The Court upheld the trial judge’s factual findings that the Yau family had exclusive factual possession of Area X1 from about 1997 for the requisite 12‑year period and that Lee acquired an easement by prescription over Area A by continuous, uninterrupted use since 1982 with acquiescence by the owners; the plaintiff’s challenges (pleading period, government letters, temporary clearance, unpleaded illegality, standing and derogation arguments) did not demonstrate error of law or fact requiring overturning; declaratory relief was confined to Lee and the right of way specified along the path bet…
24 Dec 2019

KING’S DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. PARKVIEW INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1695
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1664/2019

The plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or a strong prima facie case for a mandatory injunction: documented licence/tenancy agreements and a Grant materially controverted the prescriptive easement claim, there was no evidence P's Land was landlocked, damages were adequate, plaintiff's delay was inordinate and would cause greater injustice to defendants; accordingly the interlocutory mandatory injunction was refused and the application dismissed.
24 Jun 2019

FANTASTIC STATE LTD v. TIEN’S ORGANIC FARM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 687
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/2019

The Court held that omission of the approval clause in Special Condition 30(a) and misleading evidence about connection and historical vehicular use were material non-disclosures which were not satisfactorily explained; on the available evidence the defendants had not shown a serious issue to be tried either on express grant under Condition 30(a) or on prescription for vehicular access; exercising its discretion afresh the Court discharged the interlocutory injunction and awarded costs nisi to the plaintiff.
22 Nov 2018

ASIAN WELL TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. LEE YEE MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA467/2013

The court held that the acts of enclosing the narrow lane (Land X1) by a glass panel at the back in about 1997, adding a canopy and later a front glass panel by 2003, amounted to sufficient factual possession and intention to exclude the world such that adverse possession of Land X1 arose from 1997 (satisfying limitation for >12 years under s.7(2) and entitling defendants to ownership of Land X1); by contrast the use of Land X2 and Land Y was open, transient and insufficient to establish exclusive possession, and the court also found that Lee (as registered proprietor of SC 359) acquired an e…
4 Jul 2018

HO KWOK HING v. LAM TAI HING TSO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1422
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA694/2017

The judge concluded that costs in the cause remain appropriate because both parties contributed to the procedural shortcomings; the adjournment of the earlier hearing was not solely the plaintiff's fault; defendants had pursued issues (alternative access) irrelevant to a prescription claim; and the matter still required trial so interlocutory costs should not be shifted to plaintiff now.
30 Nov 2015

CHU CHUNG SHING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU CHUNG SHING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM CHUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2773/2011

Defendants failed to prove continuous and exclusive possession for the requisite 20 years due to unreliable/suspect succession documents, reservations undermining exclusive possession and lack of credible evidence; consequently no possessory title or prescriptive easement accrued; defendants were trespassers and caused nuisance; demolition and removal of illegal structures was an appropriate remedy for safety and remedial reasons; damages of HK$106,063 and mesne profits at HK$5,000 per month awarded and injunction restraining reconnection of utilities granted; counterclaim dismissed.
21 Mar 2012

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 Appeal
Case number

CACV59/2011

The Court held the doorway existed from the time of the building's original development (present at the date of first assignment in March 1965), was not shown to be an illegal structure, and had been used sufficiently from 1965 to 2004 to found a right of way by long user; clause 2 of the DMC supported the access right. Accordingly the appeal failed and the declaration that the plaintiff has a right of way was upheld.
3 Dec 2008

YEUNG YU CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. BASE KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG YU CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. BASE KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV204/2008

The injunction was discharged and the order granting interim relief set aside because plaintiffs could not demonstrate a serious issue to be tried: objective evidence (aerial photographs and plans) showed the Second Road did not exist for the required 20-year period and the plaintiffs' easement claims (prescription, Wheeldon v Burrows, necessity, public dedication) were untenable; indemnity costs were awarded against the second plaintiff for deliberate falsehood in pleadings and evidence selection.