Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance cap.347

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2026

HO KWOK WA v. WONG SOOK JIN

Citation

[2026] HKDC 302
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1370/2024

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff and predecessor demonstrated continuous and exclusive physical control (enclosure, structures, utilities, use and payment of expenses) together with an intention to possess the Blue Land to the exclusion of the registered owner for a period exceeding 12 years, thereby extinguishing the defendant's title under the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347); procedural rules permitting omission of service in default of acknowledgement of service justified proceeding in the defendant's absence, so default judgment and declarations were properly granted.
6 Jan 2014

CHAN KWAI CHOI v. TSANG YUEN KIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KWAI CHOI v. TSANG YUEN KIU AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3889/2011

Court found credible evidence that the plaintiff occupied Lot 199 under an oral licence from the deceased which left an access opening and that HCSL surveyors entered the land in Dec 1994 and Feb 1995 (and TASL in 2010) with owner/authorised access; thus plaintiff did not possess the land adversely or exclusively with animus possidendi for the statutory period and failed to extinguish defendants’ paper title. Plaintiff’s adverse possession claim dismissed and defendants entitled to possession and ancillary relief.
15 Aug 2011

TANG WAI LUN v. TANG KAI TUNG

Citation

TANG WAI LUN v. TANG KAI TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1705/1998

The appeal was dismissed and the Master's order striking out the plaintiff's claim was upheld because the plaintiff exhibited inordinate and inexcusable delay after being appointed personal representative, the delay caused prejudice through loss of key witnesses and evidence, and that delay constituted laches and abuse of process such that equitable relief (specific performance) should be refused.
26 Feb 2009

HSBC PRIVATE TRUST (HONG KONG) LTD v. AU YEUNG CHUNG

Citation

HSBC PRIVATE TRUST (HONG KONG) LTD v. AU YEUNG CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV69/2008

The trial judge was entitled to find on the evidence that the Lau family's occupation was permissive under a licence from the deceased (continued by his widow), that they lacked animus possidendi to defeat the legal title, and accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to possession; the Court of Appeal declined to disturb those findings and dismissed the appeal.
9 Nov 2006

KAN KAM CHO AND ANOTHER v. KAN CHIU NAM RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAN KAM CHO AND ANOTHER v. KAN CHIU NAM RAYMOND AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV91/2005

The Court held that the photogrammetry and supporting measurements were sufficient to establish that the defendant's house, as rebuilt in 1982/1983, did not extend further onto Lot 3443 than the earlier building and that adverse possession by the defendant had continued unchallenged for well in excess of 20 years; in light of the Court of Final Appeal authority on the Extension Ordinance the defendant could rely on occupation prior to the Ordinance, so the plaintiffs' injunction and delivery-up claim failed.
22 Aug 2005

MAIN LONG INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG HEI BOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

MAIN LONG INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG HEI BOR AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP48/2004

Section 6 of the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance, Cap.150, operated by way of reversionary leases commencing on expiry of the existing leases on 27 June 1997 thereby creating a new legal estate; accordingly adverse possession before June 1997 cannot be relied upon under the Limitation Ordinance, Cap.347.
18 Jul 2003

CHINA OVERSEAS GRAND GAIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG CHI SUM AND PERSONS UNKNOWN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA OVERSEAS GRAND GAIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG CHI SUM AND PERSONS UNKNOWN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP969/1999

Judge found the live evidence established continuous adverse possession by the defendants since about 1959/1960, giving them possessory title which extinguished earlier title by c.1980; the 1985 vesting order could not have vested a superior leasehold in the executor as to the land already extinguished by defendants' possession; registration did not convert that vested possessory title into a leasehold; accordingly the plaintiff had no better title than the defendants and its claim failed, and the defendants succeed on their counterclaim for possession and declaratory relief.
25 Nov 2002

MUTUAL LUCK INVESTMENT LTD v. YEUNG CHI KUEN & OTHERS

Citation

MUTUAL LUCK INVESTMENT LTD v. YEUNG CHI KUEN & OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6047/1998

The 39th Defendant's adverse possession defence fails: on the facts her occupation was not adverse but as sub‑tenant with rent paid (rebutting adverse possession); alternatively time did not run against the registered owner/lessee because rents were received up to termination (accrual postponed) and because the Cap.150 extension gave the lessee a specifically enforceable right linked to the prior lease (Chung Ping Kwan rationale), so the squatter could not defeat title; accordingly Plaintiff entitled to possession, mesne profits and costs.