Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation of actions

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KIN YUEN MANSION v. CHAN TIN KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 573
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5673/2021

The storeroom formed from the lift shaft and altered partition wall remains a common part and constituted unauthorised building works; defendants established adverse possession and deserve declaratory possessory title, but adverse possession does not bar the incorporated owners from enforcing the DMC in respect of removal of illegal structures and compliance with the Building Order; because the illegal works were built by or at the initiative of the incorporated owners, the Plaintiff must bear reinstatement costs; therefore the court orders reinstatement in accordance with approved plans, gra…
23 May 2024

CHAN LOK SEE LILYAN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING LEE BUILDING

Citation

[2024] HKDC 833
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3736/2022

Plaintiffs pleaded and established on the face of the amended statements of claim facts sufficient to show factual possession and intention for the statutory periods, defendant filed no defence and expressly accepted lack of privity to the DMC, and justice required declarations; therefore declarations were granted that plaintiffs acquired possessory title and defendant's title over the specified common areas was extinguished under s17 Limitation Ordinance.
8 Mar 2024

SO MAN AND ANOTHER v. NG KWOK CHING (also known as DICKSON NG, also known as NG KWOK CHING DICKSON and also known as DICKSON NG KWOK CHING) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 687
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP674/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found a common intention constructive trust (alternatively a resulting trust) in favour of Ng Kai Shing and So Man: key contemporaneous evidence (1996 handwritten declaration), the HK$2.4M bank transfer corresponding to half the purchase price and premium, the parties' separation before purchase and long occupation and payment of outgoings established that Dickson had no beneficial interest. Consequently Dickson holds his legal title on trust for Ng Kai Shing (and So Man are tenants in common in equal shares), the charging order is discharged and Chiu…
28 Nov 2022

CHOW KAM HUNG v. HOI KONG IRONWARES GODOWN CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1368
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5138/2019

The court found the ironmongery/stainless steel partnership was dissolved by agreement on 15 October 2004; no binding oral settlement of accounts was proved; plaintiff's claims for accounts and for profit sharing under the oral promise are governed by the Limitation Ordinance and, on the facts, are time-barred; although 'net profits' would include rental income and the oral promise was supported by consideration, limitation extinguished the actionable claims.
22 Nov 2022

LAW SHUN FU v. TSE YUI LING WINNIE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA830/2015

The plaintiff failed to prove, on compelling evidence, continuous exclusive physical possession and the requisite intention to possess the disputed land over the requisite limitation period; possession was interrupted by periods (circa 1997–2006/2010) and key acts were attributable to others, therefore the plaintiff's adverse possession claim is dismissed and the defendants' counterclaim for possession is allowed.
29 Aug 2022

BRIGHT EMPIRE ENTERPRISES LTD v. HO KAP SIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2651
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1880/2021

The mortgage, being ancient and supported by evidence of uninterrupted, undisturbed possession by the plaintiff's predecessor and absence of any claim or demand for the relevant period, is unenforceable by reason of limitation under ss19(1) and (2) and a declaratory order was appropriate; Re Amirteymour was distinguishable because the present application seeks declaratory, effectively in rem relief on the merits, so the limited appointment of the Official Solicitor to accept service did not preclude determination on the merits.
24 Feb 2022

LEE WAH PUT AND ANOTHER v. LI IP SHING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1839/2020

Given effective substituted service and the plaintiffs’ pleaded facts showing continuous exclusive possession and the requisite intention to possess for in excess of 20 years, the court on a default application under O.19 r.7 was entitled to grant the declaratory relief that the plaintiffs had acquired possessory title by adverse possession; limitation extinguished the defendant’s right to recover but the court declined to describe the title as ‘indefeasible’ or to make an unnecessary general bar against future actions by the defendant.
23 Jul 2021

YQCDG v. YMML

Citation

[2021] HKFC 132
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC17035/2012

Applying the statutory framework in MPPO ss6 and 7 and the LKW v DD multi‑step approach, the court (i) rejected the writ of subpoena practice and required Order 38 r2(3) for attendance; (ii) disallowed several of H's asserted creditor liabilities where H failed to prove absence of express repayment terms and thus failed to establish implied 'payable on demand' terms, but accepted the running account loan to H's next friend (head of chambers) applying Clayton's Case; (iii) adopted the agreed earlier valuation for the KL Property (RM880,000) and rejected the late valuation report for lack of le…
8 Jun 2020

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF CHEUNG HUNG FOON, Deceased v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF CHAN KUP YAU, Deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1042
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2576/2015

Claim dismissed because plaintiff failed to produce compelling admissible evidence linking the claimant to the activities on the land and to prove both factual possession and intention to possess for the statutory period; the claimant was deceased so his untested statements and affirmation could not bear the evidential burden and the amended pleadings did not properly plead the requisite intention to possess.
20 Jun 2019

KING, BENJI HENRY v. ASIA HARBOUR INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1823/2017

The court held that, as between the plaintiff and the defendants, continuous adverse possession existed sufficient to establish title by adverse possession by aggregating the guardians’ possession with the plaintiff’s possession, thereby extinguishing the defendants’ rights under s17 Limitation Ordinance; however the court declined to make a declaratory ruling on entitlement to compensation for compulsory sale and refused to grant a permanent injunction.