Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance s7(2)

Legal area

Court

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.
25 Feb 2019

CHEUNG LAI LING RITA v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LATE SOO YEE LEE

Citation

[2019] HKDC 245
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ41/2018

Plaintiff established exclusive possession and manifested intention to exclude the owner from about May 2002 (including changing locks and paying rates), thereby satisfying the requirements for adverse possession and acquiring a possessory title; consequently the Deceased's estate is barred from recovery under Limitation Ordinance s7(2) and the estate's title is extinguished under s17.
1 Mar 2016

LEUNG PAK KI v. THE ESTATE OF PANG KAU, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG PAK KI v. THE ESTATE OF PANG KAU, DECEASED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA624/2009

The application for default judgment was dismissed because the pleaded case lacked sufficient particularity and cogent facts on its face to establish exclusive adverse possession of the whole property and entitlement to the declaratory and vesting relief sought; the court will not grant such declarations without trial when the pleadings do not justify it.
9 Jan 2014

LAW YUK CHEUNG v. LOA KU TAI

Citation

LAW YUK CHEUNG v. LOA KU TAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4/2012

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff demonstrated factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the land since 1952 (over 20 years prior to the action), thereby extinguishing the registered owner's right to bring an action; accordingly declarations of extinguishment of title and of plaintiff's possessory title were properly granted on the default judgment application under Order 19 rule 7.
14 May 2013

MA WEINENG v. MA HOOK KWAN

Citation

MA WEINENG v. MA HOOK KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2237/2011

The court held that on the facts (ousting in 1987, exclusive possession by predecessor and continued possession by successor) the defendant lost the right to bring any action under section 7(2) and consequently the defendant's title was extinguished and vested in the plaintiff under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance.
18 Aug 2010

CHANG SHUN TAK AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG SUN FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

CHANG SHUN TAK AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG SUN FAT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13809/1997

On the balance of probabilities the 2nd defendant proved continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the Green, Yellow and Blue lands from at least 1973 (Yellow and Blue) and 1974 (Green); the pleadings allowed reliance on such periods within the longer pleaded period starting 1967, and accordingly the plaintiffs' remedies to recover those lands were extinguished under Limitation Ordinance s7(2) and s17, so the action for possession was dismissed and declarations granted in favour of the 2nd defendant.
15 Jun 2010

TANG CHO SANG AND OTHERS v. TANG WAN HOI

Citation

TANG CHO SANG AND OTHERS v. TANG WAN HOI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3014/2009

The court, satisfied there was a genuine need for declaratory relief and that the Defendant had not contested the claim after substituted service, declared that the Defendant's right and title to Lot 306 are statute-barred and extinguished under s7(2) and s17 of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) and that the Plaintiffs (Tang Cho Sang and the Tso as managers) have acquired a possessory title to the Suit Land for the residue of the Government Lease to 30 June 2047.
10 Sept 2009

THOUSAND TREASURE INVESTMENT LTD v. PINKTON LTD

Citation

THOUSAND TREASURE INVESTMENT LTD v. PINKTON LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3540/2006

Defendant failed to prove uninterrupted adverse possession of the encroached 34 sqm for the required 12 years; tenancy and the repossession of Unit 38 by Jun Time Limited in December 1996 interrupted any running of adverse possession, so the plaintiff's claim was not time-barred and judgment is entered for the plaintiff.