Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Licence vs possession

  • 9 Sept 2022

    TANG ANDY v. CHAN TIN CHOI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 964
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2814/2015

    The court found that defendants and predecessors occupied the disputed plots pursuant to permission or licences from Tang Chai On and his successor (Madam Poon) and thus lacked the requisite animus possidendi; documentary permits (MOT, Crown permits/licences) and conduct (seasonal tribute, meetings, payments under MOT) supported permissive occupation; YLDO meetings were without prejudice but privilege was waived by defendants' conduct and delay; defendants failed to discharge heavy onus to prove adverse possession; judgment for plaintiff awarding possession and mesne profits accordingly.

  • 22 Apr 2021

    FUNG YUK LUEN v. WONG FUNG LAN

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 487
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ447/2017

    Although the plaintiff showed factual possession by enclosure and use, the court found he failed to establish animus possidendi for the relevant period because credible evidence of a village practice of lending land, negotiations to buy or swap the lots (including a specific HK$150,000 offer) and the plaintiff's conduct in allowing or not preventing a 2016 survey were consistent with a licence/acknowledgement of the owners' title; accordingly adverse possession was not established and the defendants were entitled to possession.

  • 25 Feb 2004

    CHAN SUK YIN AND ANOTHER v. HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD

    Citation
    CHAN SUK YIN AND ANOTHER v. HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA477/2000

    The plaintiffs proved factual possession and animus possidendi for the relevant 20-year period from early 1962 to early 1982; the defendant failed to prove any licence or other right that prevented possession being adverse; accordingly the plaintiffs acquired a possessory title and the paper owner's title was extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance, so declarations in favour of the plaintiffs were ordered and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

  • 20 Sept 2000

    KAM TO PUI v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    KAM TO PUI v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA646/1996

    The court found the Plaintiff failed to prove 20 years adverse possession in the outer area because the owner exercised rights of control and the Plaintiff's use did not exclude the owner; however the Plaintiff established factual possession and animus possidendi for the inner area (between the second gate and the rear of Shop A) for the requisite 20 years and therefore acquired title to that inner area under the Limitation Ordinance, subject to the owner's residual rights in utilities and access.