Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extinguishment of title

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

CHEUNG PAK MING AND ANOTHER v. LAM CHEUNG HI

Citation

[2026] HKDC 164
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2989/2021

The court found that uninterrupted exclusive possession and receipt of rental income by the Plaintiffs and their predecessors since 1956, together with the Defendant's absence of demand or contact, justified a presumption of actual ouster; accordingly the Defendant's title was extinguished by operation of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance and declaratory relief was granted in favour of the Plaintiffs.
19 Apr 2024

逸昇發展有限公司 v. 曾紀洲

Citation

[2024] HKDC 535
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3252/2014

Defendant proved exclusive physical possession and the requisite intention to possess from August 1995 on the balance of probabilities given the continuous exclusive control (gate and sole key), CLP electricity account, business use shown by invoices and the 1997 incidents; accordingly the Limitation Ordinance operated to extinguish Plaintiff’s title and Defendant is entitled to a possessory title and declaratory relief under s7(2) and s17 LO; Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
27 Sept 2021

LI KWOK FUNG v. CHIU SHUN CHEONG Administrator of the estate of Madam Hung Sau King, deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1226
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3168/2008

On the evidence the court found continuous exclusive factual possession and animus possidendi by the deceased from the early 1960s and by the plaintiff thereafter, the MOT did not amount to an acknowledgement defeating adverse possession, there was no reliable evidence of rent paid to the paper owner, and accordingly the defendant's title was extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance so the plaintiff acquired a possessory title.
26 Jan 2021

WONG WAI MAN (formerly known as SIK SHUI HOI) v. CHEUNG PAK HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 105
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1744/2017

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff and his followers exercised continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the Disputed Area from 15 January 1998 for over 12 years; therefore the paper title of the 1st defendant to the Disputed Area was extinguished under ss 7(2) and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance and plaintiff is entitled to a possessory title and injunction.
22 Mar 2019

CHAN SAN v. HANS LI, THE PERSON APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE OF KAM SHUI MAN, THE DECEASED

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 714
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA840/2012

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff had established factual possession and the requisite animus possidendi in respect of Area A (from at least 1997) and Area B (by construction and exclusive use of the private road) within the relevant limitation period; accordingly the 1st defendant’s rights to recover the land were barred and its title extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance, and the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of possessory title to the parts of Area A and Area B lying within Lot 1215 and Lot 1212RP.
29 Nov 2018

WONG SHUK HAN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1464
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2736/2017

The plaintiff demonstrated continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the residential flat for more than 20 years prior to the proceedings; under the Limitation Ordinance (including s10 as applicable to equitable interests) the legal title formerly held by the Company was extinguished by limitation and the plaintiff acquired an indefeasible possessory title.
10 May 2018

HUI CHUNG YAU v. HUI HUNG KIM alias LU HAI

Citation

[2018] HKDC 497
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3075/2014

The plaintiff established continuous exclusive adverse possession (and a prior period by his predecessor) exceeding twenty years, the defendant had been effectively ousted by long absence and non‑assertion, and therefore the defendant's legal and beneficial interests were extinguished under Section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, so the plaintiff acquired an indefeasible possessory title.
23 Mar 2017

LI CHI SING v. HOP YICK TONG WITH TAM SHING PING AS MANAGER

Citation

LI CHI SING v. HOP YICK TONG WITH TAM SHING PING AS MANAGER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4116/2014

Because the land is held by a Tso/Tong and births of members give rise to new equitable interests that restart limitation periods, it would be inappropriate to grant a default declaratory judgment extinguishing the Tso/Tong's title without a trial and without joining and investigating all members; accordingly the summons for default judgment was dismissed.
16 Apr 2015

LEE WAI YING also known as LI WAI YING v. SAU FAT SZE AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE WAI YING also known as LI WAI YING v. SAU FAT SZE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1919/2013

Because the plaintiff had long continuous and exclusive possession supported by documentation and the defendants could not be located or had taken no action, the court held the defendants' rights to recover their respective one-third shares were statute-barred under section 7(2) and, by operation of section 17, their legal beneficial interests and title were extinguished, entitling the plaintiff to possessory title and the declaratory relief sought.
30 Sept 2014

TSANG KWONG KUEN v. HAU WAI KEUNG GAIUS AND OTHERS

Citation

TSANG KWONG KUEN v. HAU WAI KEUNG GAIUS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1/2014

Appeal dismissed: judge correctly held that (1) the defendants established the Tong was hereditary and produced uncontradicted evidence of members, such that at least one member remained within the limitation period so the plaintiff could not extinguish the Tong's title under Leung Kuen Fai; and (2) the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the requisite period of adverse possession (the judge's adverse credibility findings and acceptance of defence evidence were lawful and supported dismissal).