Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance (cap 347)

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2025

CHAN MEI HEUNG v. HAPPY TREND ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1943
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3843/2020

Court found on balance that occupation of the FX1 Area began no later than 27 July 1982, that Plaintiff maintained exclusive possession and requisite intention despite family residing in public housing from 2001, and that the 20‑year limitation expired by 27 July 2002 extinguishing the paper owner’s title in respect of the FX1 Area; the Extended Area was only occupied from 2013 so limitation had not run and Plaintiff’s claim to the Extended Area fails; accordingly declaration of possessory title granted to Plaintiff for FX1 Area and Defendant succeeds for Extended Area with orders for vacant…
27 May 2024

HORN KING LTD v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 773
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ296/2018

Defendants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and to the compelling standard required, continuous exclusive factual possession and animus possidendi of Garage Space B2 for any continuous 12‑year period up to the commencement of the action; plaintiff's title was therefore not extinguished, defendants were trespassers (1st defendant from November 2015; 2nd defendant from May 2020), and plaintiff was entitled to possession, declarations, injunctions and mesne profits as assessed by the expert valuation.
30 Apr 2024

HUI WING SZE v. CHIU KA KEUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 685
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ441/2021

Defendant established factual possession and animus in respect of the Trespassed Area from May 2004; the 12‑year limitation period elapsed by May 2016, extinguishing the plaintiff's right to recover possession under the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347); plaintiff's claims under the DMC and for mesne profits are therefore time-barred or extinguished.
28 Nov 2022

CHOW KAM HUNG v. WONG KIU, person appointed to represent the estate of NG WAI KWONG, Deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1368
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5127/2019

The court held that the ironmongery/stainless steel partnership was dissolved on 15 October 2004; there was no proved agreement that the HK$300,000 capital bore interest; no binding oral settlement agreement on accounts was proved; the plaintiff’s claim for an account (and Hoi Kong’s counterclaim) was time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance; the oral promise did include rental income as part of 'net profits' but the claim based on that promise was time‑barred; the oral promise was supported by consideration (plaintiff stayed in the business) but limitation defeated recovery.
23 Jun 2022

LAW FUNG v. The estate of LIU HOI MAU, deceased

Citation

[2022] HKDC 626
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6700/2020

The plaintiff proved continuous exclusive possession of the Disputed Area with the requisite intention to possess for not less than 20 years prior to commencement of proceedings, thereby acquiring a possessory title and extinguishing the defendant's right to recover the land under the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347).
7 Jan 2021

CHAN SUWANNA v. SYNERGIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 18
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1116/2018

Section 27 Limitation Ordinance, which sets a 3-year limit for personal injury damage claims, does not apply to a defendant's third party claim for contribution or indemnity; such claims constitute separate actions governed by section 6 LO and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance, and Order 16 permits issuing third party proceedings while the main action remains pending; accordingly the Master's order granting leave to issue the third party notice was correctly upheld and the third party's summons to rescind/set aside was rightly dismissed.
9 Jun 2020

WONG CHONG KWAI YIN v. TSANG HAU LING, the executrix of TANG LAN FONG, the deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1153
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2005

Court found on the evidence (witnesses and expert surveys) that plaintiff had been in physical and exclusive occupation of the said Lots for not less than 20 years prior to the writ and therefore had a better right to possession than TLF's estate as at the writ date; the 1999 judgment did not bind the plaintiff; alleged trespass and harassment claims were not proved against the defendants and were dismissed; declaratory relief in favour of plaintiff granted and certain injunctive relief and damages claims dismissed.
4 Mar 2020

LAM TAK CHOI v. CHOW TAI FOOK JEWELLERY CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 362
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2481/2015

The Order 14A application was dismissed because the legal question cannot be determined without resolving disputed factual matters and assessing public policy and the seriousness of alleged breaches affecting public safety; the necessary factual matrix was not established for a final summary determination and the court must hear the evidence at trial; costs ordered against the plaintiff.
21 Aug 2018

MAN KING CHUEN AND OTHERS v. HONG LOK YUEN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ASSOCIATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1686
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA299/2011

Recorder Yvonne Cheng SC granted the 2nd Defendant leave to adduce expert evidence on the two specified questions of Chinese customary law, holding that expert evidence on Chinese customs remains admissible and may be helpful even where prior authorities exist; further held that the Court of Appeal decisions cited did not constitute binding precedents on the specific propositions in Leung Kuen Fai because they had assumed or applied that decision rather than directly deciding its correctness.
15 Nov 2017

WONG LEI AH v. LEE JIM WING

Citation

WONG LEI AH v. LEE JIM WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA970/2015

The tenancy agreement of 11 July 1977 was valid; plaintiff established factual possession but failed to prove the requisite animus possidendi for the statutory 20-year period because her evidence of exclusive intention was inconsistent, self-serving and contradicted by contemporaneous conduct and documentary evidence; therefore defendant's title was not extinguished by limitation and defendant was entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits.