Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

License

  • 12 Oct 2022

    YU PAK KAN v. BUSY FIRM INVESTMENT LTD

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 1092
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2083/2017

    The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendant/applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success; the trial judge's factual findings that the plaintiff evidenced exclusive possession and required intention by enclosure (hoardings), sealing of the gap and gate were supported by documentary and expert evidence and are not plainly wrong; no other interests of justice justified granting leave.

  • 21 Jun 2013

    BRIDAM LTD AND ANOTHER v. SA SA COSMETIC COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    BRIDAM LTD AND ANOTHER v. SA SA COSMETIC COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER<br>
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1050/2013

    Plaintiffs had sufficient possession and enforceable rights in the signage (or at least a right warranting protection) and the 2nd defendant trespassed by reinstating the advertisement; the signage is a fixture of the landlord; there was urgency and no real prospect of successful defence by defendants, therefore interlocutory relief was justified and granted.

  • 18 Feb 2010

    HOPE VIEW LTD v. YUE LEE FA

    Citation
    HOPE VIEW LTD v. YUE LEE FA
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP307/2009

    The summons to strike out was dismissed because the plaintiff's claim based on registered ownership disclosed a reasonable cause of action and the existence of disputed beneficial interests and notice raised factual questions for trial; thus the court could not summarily determine those proprietary issues and the matter must proceed as if begun by Writ.

  • 16 Oct 2009

    THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUNG ON BUILDING v. OCCUPANTS AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUNG ON BUILDING v. OCCUPANTS AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2576/2008

    The Roof is common area; Mr Chiu's knowledge and private arrangements do not bind the Incorporated Owners; endorsement for separate meters amounted at most to a licence which was determinable and was validly terminated by the solicitors' letter of November 2008; payment of management fees and a request for contribution do not constitute the representation, detrimental reliance or legal recognition necessary to found equitable estoppel or waiver; accordingly the Incorporated Owners are entitled to recover possession.

  • 15 May 2008

    WU HAN SIN v. LEUNG FAT

    Citation
    WU HAN SIN v. LEUNG FAT
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2430/2005

    Evidence established the defendant occupied with the owner's (and later plaintiff's) consent and paid rent as recorded by receipts; he was a tenant/licensee not an adverse possessor, so limitation did not extinguish the plaintiff's title; plaintiff entitled to possession and mesne profits.

  • 15 Jan 2004

    CHIN LAN HONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG POH CHOO AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHIN LAN HONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG POH CHOO AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1208/2000

    Court found the 1982 assignment did not defeat the Father’s beneficial life interest; the 1st Defendant occupied as the Father’s licensee (not exercising exclusive possession) and that licence was not effectively revoked by the Plaintiffs’ notice and only terminated on the Father’s death; administrators of the one‑fifth share could lawfully authorise non‑exclusive occupation only after reseal of foreign letters of administration (11 Oct 2000); therefore trespass occurred only for the nine days between the Father’s death (2 Oct 2000) and reseal (11 Oct 2000), damages were assessed at HKD 36,81…

  • 28 Jan 2002

    TANG KWAN TAI v. TANG KOON LAM AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TANG KWAN TAI v. TANG KOON LAM AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ14951/2000

    The court found the Plaintiff had factual possession and clear animus possidendi from the expiry of the Kadoorie lease (1963/1964), there was no credible evidence of an expressed license extinguishing that possession, the limitation period accordingly ran to bar the First Defendant's title (possessory title acquired by Plaintiff in 1984), and the Second Defendant therefore never acquired any interest.

  • 12 Jul 1988

    TOTLAND LIMITED v. WONG SING KAU AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TOTLAND LIMITED v. WONG SING KAU AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1393/1987

    The defendants held at best a personal licence evidenced by their written statement which could not be converted into a proprietary right binding the plaintiff as successor in title; the licence was terminated by the conveyance and by commencement of proceedings, therefore the plaintiff was entitled to possession.