Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2025

YIU FAN AND ANOTHER v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LEE UN, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1933
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4293/2024

On the pleaded facts the plaintiffs established factual possession, animus possidendi and the requisite 12 years' possession such that they acquired possessory title (held as joint tenants); although the Government's resumption extinguished the paper title, the court will grant the declaratory relief sought in default judgment under Order 19 r 7 to enable the plaintiffs to claim compensation under the LRO; no costs order was made against the defendants.
30 Oct 2025

CHOI MAN CHIU v. WAN KWAN KAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1832
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1873/2022

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving adverse possession of any of the four units for the requisite 12-year period because the evidence did not establish exclusive factual possession nor the requisite animus possidendi; key documents (tenancy agreements, receipts) were unreliable or self-serving and the plaintiff's employment with the management company undermined his claim to have excluded the registered owners; accordingly plaintiff's claim is dismissed and defendants are entitled to vacant possession and costs nisi but no award of mesne profits was made.
30 Oct 2025

CHOI MAN CHIU v. WAN KWAN KAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1832
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1875/2022

The Plaintiff failed to discharge the high burden of proving both factual possession and animus possidendi for the requisite period: his evidence was inherently unreliable (tenancy agreements were unpleaded and stamped only in 2022, receipts lacked independent bank proof and were self‑issued, his employment at the management company made access and acts suspicious), and storage of personal effects in shopping‑arcade units did not amount to the degree of exclusive control expected of an occupying owner; accordingly adverse possession was not established and the Plaintiff's claims were dismisse…
30 Sept 2025

LOK KIN CHUEN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LOCKHART HOUSE

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1658
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1343/2022

The sanctioned offer was invalid because the proposed "lifetime tenancy" is not a recognised or sufficiently certain form of relief under Hong Kong law and, in the factual context (storeroom a common part and BMO s34I/DMC constraints), the defendant was prima facie justified in refusing it; therefore RDC O.22 r.24(1) was not engaged and indemnity costs under O.22 r.24 were not payable, so the O.22 summons is dismissed and the order nisi is made absolute with costs to the defendant.
26 Mar 2025

PESTON INVESTMENT LTD v. TSEUNG DING MAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1245
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1221/2023

On the unchallenged pleaded facts the plaintiff demonstrated uninterrupted exclusive possession and an intention to possess the Pink Area since about 1990 such that the defendant’s cause of action accrued then and the defendant’s title was extinguished by limitation; declaratory relief limited to the defendant was appropriate and would not affect the Government’s separate rights, therefore default judgment in the terms sought was granted.
2 Oct 2024

NGAN KWOK LEUNG v. CHUNG KAM HON

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1666
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1818/2022

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff established continuous exclusive factual possession and an intention to possess (change of locks, sealing backdoor, exclusive occupation, repairs and payment of rates/utilities) for well over the relevant limitation period predating these proceedings; accordingly the defendant's paper title is extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance and declaratory relief giving effect to that extinguishment is necessary, so default judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff.
7 Aug 2024

CHAN SHUN MAN AND ANOTHER v. TSANG CHO SAU

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1305
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2041/2022

On the pleaded facts alone in default, plaintiffs demonstrated factual possession and animus possidendi for more than 12 years prior to commencement of the action; therefore under ss7(2) and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance the defendant's registered title was extinguished and plaintiffs acquired an indefeasible possessory title; declaratory relief was necessary to do justice and is granted.
12 Apr 2023

CHENG KA SHING v. BONUS PLUS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 519
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/2020

The Court dismissed the appeal: the plaintiff failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove continuous and exclusive factual possession and the requisite animus possidendi over the Disputed Area for the limitation period; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings and weighing of evidence were reasonable and not plainly wrong; secondary grounds (licence, illegality, encroachment, concealment) did not alter outcome and need not be resolved further.
31 Mar 2023

MONAT INVESTMENT LTD v. ALL PERSON(S) IN OCCUPATION OF Part of The Remaining Portion of Lot No 591 in Mui Wo D.D. 4 No.16 Ma Po Tsuen, Mui Wo, Lantau Island AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 479
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV448/2020

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's factual findings of successive family occupation sufficient to establish adverse possession of the brick house area and the adjacent paved area; held that the ex turpi causa maxim does not operate automatically to defeat adverse possession and that Hong Kong should apply the Patel 'range of factors' approach when illegality is alleged; applying that test the public interest favoured the squatter given decades of non‑enforcement, so the 2nd defendant's possessory declaration was upheld for the marked areas and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.
8 Jan 2021

熊锦丽對梁偉棠

Citation

[2021] HKDC 14
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP331/2018

The court accepted the documentary and administrative evidence establishing Tang Fa Wui as a tso regulated under the New Territories Ordinance and, on the uncontroverted evidential foundation provided by the plaintiff, found that limitation had not extinguished the tso's and the plaintiff's right to recover the land; the Second Defendant failed to adduce any expert/customary law evidence or other rebuttal and therefore could not establish adverse possession or any equitable defence; summary determination under Order 14A was therefore appropriate and judgment for vacant possession, mesne profi…