Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance s.7(2)

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2024

NG SEW HOI AND ANOTHER v. CHONG YIN SING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 414
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15070/1998

The counterclaim was dismissed because D1 failed to prove a mutual promise or common intention to transfer beneficial ownership; his contemporaneous statements and pleadings indicated at most a licence to occupy for life and lacked clear, unequivocal representation or documentary proof required for CICT or proprietary estoppel. His alternative adverse possession claim failed because his own earlier admissions evidenced occupation under licence (negating animus possidendi) and, on the pleadings and relation back principles, the claim could not be sustained as at the relevant date.
21 Jul 2003

CHEUNG CHUN YAN v. CHAN MAN KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG CHUN YAN v. CHAN MAN KWONG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ19667/2001

Judge found on balance that defendants occupied the land with the plaintiff's consent (a licence) and that defendants acknowledged plaintiff's title; alternatively, migration by defendants led to abandonment. Therefore defendants did not acquire title by adverse possession; judgment for plaintiff for possession; mesne profits recoverable from 1999 until delivery of vacant possession; damages to be assessed; counterclaim dismissed.
17 Jun 2002

WAN KAI WAH v. LEUNG MAN FAI

Citation

WAN KAI WAH v. LEUNG MAN FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10622/1994

On the uncontradicted evidence (witnesses, documents, survey plan) the defendant proved continuous exclusive possession with the necessary animus from 1959 over Sections D and E (excluding the fenced Unoccupied Portion); possession exceeded the 20‑year limitation period so plaintiffs' cause of action was time barred and their title was extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance, entitling defendant to the declaration and costs.
30 Jul 2001

LEE CHIU TAI v. LEE YUNG KAM

Citation

LEE CHIU TAI v. LEE YUNG KAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9876/1997

The plaintiff proved continuous, exclusive possession and control of the land since the late 1950s without payment or acknowledgment of title; therefore under s.7(2) the defendant lost the right to recover the property and under s.17 the defendant's title was extinguished and vested in the plaintiff.
30 Aug 1996

Incorporated Owners of Homantin Mansion v. Power Rich Investment Ltd. and Another

Citation

Incorporated Owners of Homantin Mansion v. Power Rich Investment Ltd. and Another
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM41/1996

The Tribunal held that resolution requires determination whether s.7(2) Limitation Ordinance gives the Respondent adverse possession; if so the Applicant's enforcement application would have the effect of recovering land and thus s.7(2) is engaged. Section 45(3) BMO restricts the Tribunal from making orders that would void or substantially vary rights appearing in registered instruments, creating real doubt about the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Given the doubtful jurisdiction and significant policy and legal issues, the proper course is to transfer the matter to the High Court under s.8A of the…

Hong Kong Case Law

NG SEW HOI AND ANOTHER v. CHONG YIN SING AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG CHUN YAN v. CHAN MAN KWONG AND OTHERS

WAN KAI WAH v. LEUNG MAN FAI

LEE CHIU TAI v. LEE YUNG KAM

Incorporated Owners of Homantin Mansion v. Power Rich Investment Ltd. and Another