Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance s17

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LEE CHIU TAI, DECEASED AND ANOTHER v. TSANG LOI KI

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1841
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3485/2000

Summons dismissed because applicant failed to satisfy O.15 rr.4 and 6(2)(b) by not demonstrating a bona fide claim or a properly formulated issue to be tried between him and the parties; HCA judgment only set aside the 2007 Order for fraud and did not determine adverse possession; applicant must pursue separate proceedings for possessory title and cannot rely solely on long occupation or being a witness to justify joinder.
30 Oct 2024

LIN LOI HING v. The Personal Representative of LIN LOK SHI also known as LOK KIU (deceased)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3056
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1330/2013

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff demonstrated continuous factual possession and intention to possess the whole lot to the exclusion of the 1st Defendant since at least August 1980, an ouster was properly presumed, the statutory period had elapsed so the deceased's proprietary title to her 50% share was extinguished under s17 Limitation Ordinance, and a declaratory possessory title to that 50% share was properly granted on the default judgment application.
8 Jul 2024

LAM YU SHING AND ANOTHER v. THE OCCUPIER(S) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1057
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4161/2016

D2 failed to establish adverse possession: his pleaded case of joint possession (1992–2009) was not proved and his belated unpleaded tacking case was not permitted; alternatively, even if considered, D2 could not show continuous tacking or sufficient factual possession and animus possidendi post-2009, so Plaintiffs’ title was not extinguished as against D2; accordingly Plaintiffs succeed and mesne profits and costs are awarded.
23 May 2024

MA LAN YING v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING LEE BUILDING

Citation

[2024] HKDC 833
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3877/2022

The court accepted the pleaded facts demonstrated both factual possession and intent to possess the specified common areas for the requisite statutory periods, the defendant did not contest or plead privity to the DMC, and because justice required it the court granted declaratory relief under s17 Limitation Ordinance extinguishing the defendant's title in the specified areas and awarding possessory title to the plaintiffs.
17 Jan 2024

CHAN YIM KWONG JOE v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF THE ESTATE OF CHIU CHI HANG, DECEASED

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1327/2016

On the plaintiff's pleaded facts she established continuous exclusive factual possession with the requisite animus from January 2002 for at least the 12‑year limitation period prior to commencement of the action, thereby acquiring an indefeasible possessory title and extinguishing the registered owner's title under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance; default judgment was therefore properly entered granting the declaratory relief sought.
13 Sept 2023

RAI JAGINDRA AND OTHERS v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHOW SUN, DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1220
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1369/2022

On the pleaded facts plaintiffs had factual possession and animus possidendi from May/June 2005; their possession therefore exceeded 12 years and, pursuant to section 17 Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), the defendant's rights were extinguished and plaintiffs acquired an indefeasible possessory title as joint tenants; the court may grant declarations in default where pleadings suffice.
4 Sept 2023

SO TIN HO v. LUI SZE MUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1235
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6439/2019

Default judgment is refused because the plaintiff's pleadings do not establish the essential elements of adverse possession: there is no pleaded change from consent to non‑consent after the registered owner's death (so lack of intention to possess), no pleaded factual exclusive possession (no allegation of exclusive keys or exclusion of the owners, payments alone are insufficient), and no pleaded acts showing abandonment by the registered owners; accordingly declaratory relief cannot be granted on the existing pleadings.
18 May 2023

CHUNG SAI CHOY v. TONG TAM SHANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 780
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ620/2014

The plaintiff established continuous and exclusive possession of the Subject Lot since at least 1964 and demonstrated the requisite intention to possess to the exclusion of the paper owner for well over 20 years; accordingly the 1st defendant's right to recover the land is statute-barred under section 7(2) and his title is extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, entitling the plaintiff to a possessory title.
10 May 2023

FUNG YUK LUEN v. WONG FUNG LAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 641
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV398/2021

The Court dismissed the application for leave because the Proposed Question of joint possession did not arise—there was no finding of joint possession at trial or on appeal—and there were no exceptional circumstances to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb; the Court therefore deferred to the Appeal Committee and awarded costs to the Plaintiff.
4 Apr 2023

SIN OI FOON v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LEUNG HO, DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKDC 443
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1279/2020

The plaintiff proved exclusive factual possession and the requisite intention to possess from around 2003 for a continuous period exceeding 12 years; accordingly the registered owner's title and rights in the Property were extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance and the plaintiff acquired an indefeasible possessory title enforceable against the paper owner, warranting declaratory relief by summary determination.