Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance cap 347

Legal area

Court

29 May 2020

FUNG YAU LIN AND OTHERS v. TANG PING KUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 262
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1005/2017

The defendants failed to discharge the high burden required to establish adverse possession: expert aerial evidence and reliable witness evidence show the land was largely fallow (not subject to exclusive occupation) for the relevant years, the asserted cultivation (notably 'potato leaves') was unpleaded and unsupported, fences and hoardings are first observable only from 2013, and the acts prior to 2013 are insufficient in extent and exclusivity to prove factual possession and intention for the limitation period; accordingly the plaintiffs' registered title stands and possession is awarded t…
15 Oct 2019

LEE YIN MUI CATHERINE v. LAU SAU KONG JOHN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2462
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA566/2016

The plaintiff proved on the civil standard exclusive factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the Land from 2001 for a period exceeding 12 years by consistent evidence (occupation, fencing, utility accounts, works and planting); the defendants failed to provide particulars or credible evidence to raise a triable issue or to rebut possession; accordingly the defendants' right of action was statute-barred and by section 17 LO their title was extinguished and the plaintiff acquired the estate; summary judgment was therefore appropriate.
30 May 2018

LAI SUK YI v. HAU TSO HEE alias HAU CHO HEE STANLEY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA215/2014

The Court held that the Statement of Claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action in adverse possession because it lacked adequate particularity as to the precise area and boundaries, did not plead facts establishing factual possession or the requisite animus possidendi, and that documents and modification permits indicated occupation by permission rather than adverse possession; accordingly late amendments were refused as futile and none of the witness statements were allowed to stand as evidence-in-chief where credibility was in issue.
23 Jan 2018

YAN CHUI LIN v. KWAN MEE YUK alias KWAN MI YUK

Citation

[2018] HKDC 79
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1360/2016

The plaintiff established exclusive factual possession and animus possidendi from 1996 for more than 12 years; accordingly the defendant's registered title was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance and the plaintiff acquired a possessory title, entitling her to the declarations sought.
19 Jun 2017

HSIEH HAW SHANE GARY v. THE ESTATE OF CHANG HO YING deceased

Citation

HSIEH HAW SHANE GARY v. THE ESTATE OF CHANG HO YING deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA691/2016

The court found that Gary had established the necessary factual possession and animus possidendi by continuous open and exclusive occupation, payment of rates and carrying out repairs and maintenance, and that no lawful permission persisted after the death of the administrator because no Letters of Administration de bonis non had been issued; accordingly the registered proprietor's title was extinguished and a possessory title vested in Gary under the Limitation Ordinance Cap 347.
29 Mar 2016

POON MUI v. CHEONG WAI KIN STANLEY AND ANOTHER

Citation

POON MUI v. CHEONG WAI KIN STANLEY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2593/2012

Because rent was paid for Ngong Kwai Tau (including Lot 2158) with the last recorded receipt in 1999 the owner's right of action accrued in 1999; neither Cheung Wan nor the 1st defendant proved the requisite animus possidendi or exclusive factual possession of Lot 2158 prior to 14 November 2000, and the 1st defendant's written offer in June 2010 to return the premises further negates intention to exclude the owner. Therefore adverse possession was not established and the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession, nominal damages and an injunction.
18 Dec 2015

GLOBAL TRADING OFFSHORE (PTC) LTD v. ALL PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF WALL SHOP (ADJOINING SHOP G) ON GROUND FLOOR OF SAVOY MANSION, NO.49 CARNARVON ROAD, KOWLOON, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

GLOBAL TRADING OFFSHORE (PTC) LTD v. ALL PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF WALL SHOP<br>(ADJOINING SHOP G) ON GROUND FLOOR OF<br>SAVOY MANSION, NO.49 CARNARVON ROAD,<br>KOWLOON, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2043/2013

As a matter of law the surface of an external wall cannot be adversely possessed; on the facts the court found occupation was pursuant to a tenancy/permission evidenced by payment records and correspondence, so the 2nd defendant failed to establish adverse possession and the plaintiff is entitled to possession and mesne profits.
28 Jun 2013

CIVIC LTD v. 余綺妙 AND OTHERS

Citation

CIVIC LTD v. 余綺妙 AND OTHERS<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA225/2011

Leave was granted to the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants to amend their defences to add counterclaims seeking declarations of ownership by adverse possession because the proposed amendments raised no new facts or issues, would not require additional evidence or lengthen the trial, caused no prejudice to the plaintiff, and the court is empowered to grant consequential declaratory relief to give effect to findings at trial; procedural defects could be remedied by directions.
14 Jun 2013

HUEN CHEUK KUEN v. THE ESTATE OF LAM OI LIN DECEASED

Citation

HUEN CHEUK KUEN v. THE ESTATE OF LAM OI LIN DECEASED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1885/2012

On the pleaded facts and in default of defence the court found the pleaded possession from 16 December 1986 established adverse possession and that the defendant’s title was extinguished under ss 7 and 17 Limitation Ordinance; the plaintiff therefore acquired a possessory title by 16 December 2006 or at the latest by commencement of the action.
22 Jan 2013

SUN FOCUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUN FOCUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA538/2007

The amendment was allowed only as to the cause of action based on the oral cooperation Agreement because that claim arises from the same factual matrix as the Amended SOC and would require no major fresh investigation; the amendment based on agency/fiduciary duty was disallowed because essential allegations underpinning agency (notably defendants' responsibility for communications with PRC investors and plaintiff's reliance) were not pleaded previously and are not 'substantially the same' facts, so the agency claim is time‑barred and unsalvageable by amendment.