Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance s7 and s17

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2024

WONG HUNG HO v. The personal representative of LI WING SEUNG, deceased

Citation

[2024] HKDC 967
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3065/2021

On the basis of the Statement of Claim alone the plaintiff established factual possession and the requisite intention to possess from August 2007 for the statutory period; therefore the plaintiff acquired possessory title and the defendant's title was extinguished under sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance. The injunction was refused because it was not pleaded and would be wider than the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. Costs follow the event but disallowance applied to costs of affidavit(s) as per established practice.
10 May 2023

KWOK WING FAT v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATAIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KWOK CHUN KAN, DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2243/2018

On the pleaded facts alone the Plaintiff demonstrated exclusive, continuous possession and animus possidendi for a continuous period in excess of 12 years from 18 May 2005; therefore the Defendant's paper title was extinguished vis-à-vis the Plaintiff by operation of s17 of the Limitation Ordinance and declaratory relief to that effect was appropriate and granted on the default judgment application.
16 Dec 2022

LEE TIM MUI v. HUI SHU PANG

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1427
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP33/2019

The court found on the balance of probabilities that plaintiff was authorised by Chen/Sheng Zhan from 1998 to possess and manage the property as a licensee (including custody of keys and title deeds), that her acts were pursuant to that permission (not exclusive adverse possession against the registered owner), she did not possess adversely for the requisite 12 years, and therefore her claim fails and defendant’s counterclaim for vacant possession and mesne profits succeeds.
24 Aug 2022

CHAN SIU PING v. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LAM SEE LAI JOSEPH

Citation

[2022] HKDC 912
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3568/2021

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff and her husband had permission to occupy until Joseph’s death and that after Joseph died on 10 March 1991 the plaintiff possessed the Flat as owner with exclusive factual possession and clear intent to possess. That possession continued for the requisite period (20 years from 10 March 1991 to 9 March 2011), extinguishing the defendant’s right to recover possession under section 17 and rendering recovery time-barred under section 7 of the Limitation Ordinance; declaratory relief was therefore granted summarily in the plaintiff’…
3 Jul 2019

KWONG WING LAN v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD CHAN otherwise known as CHAN TAK TAI, deceased

Citation

[2019] HKDC 908
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3379/2015

Plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities exclusive and continuous possession with animus possidendi for more than 12 years; accordingly Limitation Ordinance ss.7 and 17 extinguished the registered owner's title and plaintiff acquired a possessory title to the Property.
1 Mar 2019

GRINGO INVESTMENT LTD v. PANG CHI WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2199/2017

On the material (Pang Aff and pleadings) the court found the father and D1 had been in continuous, exclusive adverse possession of the Property since the 1960s for well over 20 years; that factual possession and intent to possess were established and therefore P's registered title had been extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance and D1 acquired possessory title; declaratory relief was appropriate and was granted accordingly.
9 Jun 2017

WONG PUI LING v. LEUNG KIT FUN BEATRICE BENEDICT AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG PUI LING v. LEUNG KIT FUN BEATRICE BENEDICT AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4784/2014

The plaintiff proved both the intention to possess and continuous exclusive physical possession of the land for over 12 years; accordingly, by operation of sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance the defendants' title was extinguished and the court properly granted declaratory relief under Order 19, rule 7 without a trial given the plaintiff's genuine need and absence of any defence.
5 May 2017

POON CHI HANG v. LAI HO SUN

Citation

POON CHI HANG v. LAI HO SUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1020/2013

The plaintiff failed to prove the requisite animus possidendi because his acts (changing locks, paying maintenance and management) were equivocal and consistent with occupation under permission; occupation by the Poon family derived from an unchallenged permission from Lai Senior adopted by the defendant so was not adverse; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for possessory title fails and the defendant's counterclaim for vacant possession succeeds, with no award of mesne profits.
11 Sept 2015

YEUNG WAI FAN v. HONITON INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

YEUNG WAI FAN v. HONITON INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1051/2010

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the land and structures he relied on corresponded to the registered Lots and failed to establish continuous exclusive factual possession with animus possidendi for the requisite period; objective evidence (survey sheets, aerial photographs, documentary records) and inconsistencies in witness evidence undermined the adverse possession claim; accordingly the limitation-based declaration was refused and the claim dismissed, with an order that the writ registration be vacated and costs awarded to the defendant.
3 Jul 2014

HO KWAI CHUN v. LAI YU

Citation

HO KWAI CHUN v. LAI YU
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ916/2013

Despite defects in pleading about the vendor's identity and the precise date possession became adverse, on the pleadings the plaintiff was entitled to declarations that the defendant's title to the rear portion was extinguished and that the plaintiff has acquired possessory title, and the court granted those declarations while dismissing the Directions Summons and awarding costs subject to a carve-out for inadmissible material.