Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation periods

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

BUI HONG HOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2592
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1409/2022

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation and, substantively, the intended challenge to the Board's decision is not reasonably arguable: the Board applied correct legal principles, its adverse credibility findings were open to it, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Director's earlier decision was superseded and not reviewable after appeal to the Board.
2 Feb 2026

伍銅對 TANG KWAN HO（鄧群好）, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF TANG KAP MUK（鄧甲木）, DECEASED及另三人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 202
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3574/2023

The court found on credibility and documentary/aerial/photo evidence that plaintiffs and their parents exercised exclusive factual possession with the requisite animus from at least late 1967 through 1987 (a continuous 20-year period), that defendants failed to prove any valid lease or consent negating adverse possession, and therefore by operation of the Limitation Ordinance the defendants' registered title was extinguished by 2006; consequent later acts by defendants or their purported tenants could not defeat the possessory title and plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of possessory…
7 Jan 2026

MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 18
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1103/2020

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was 20 days late, provided no valid or sufficient reason for the delay (a mistaken calculation and holiday belief did not justify the delay), and the intended appeal lacked a realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and the Court's prior dismissal of leave.
19 Dec 2025

LUK SIU PO v. LUK HIN LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA399/2019

Court found many substantive claims in deceit and ritual schemes were time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance; but on facts the Plaintiff proved she transferred income and funds under the control and directions of D2 and that transfers from the Joint Account to D1 were procured by D2's undue influence so those transfers must be accounted for and returned; the Impugned Documents (Acknowledgment of Debt, Declaration of Trust and 1140 Assignment) were procured by undue influence and set aside; D1 held a resulting trust interest in the 1140 Property proportionate to proven contributions but ha…
12 Dec 2025

LAW WAI FONG v. LUCKY PROFIT CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2084
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4940/2019

On the balance of probabilities the court found HK and CKC ceased paying rent from early 1989 and CKC had adequate factual possession and animus possidendi (at the latest by HK's death in 2000) such that successive occupation exceeded the relevant limitation periods; the registered owner's right to recover was statute-barred under the Limitation Ordinance and CKC acquired possessory title; LWF lacked the requisite animus for the statutory period and her claim failed.
2 Dec 2025

LEI SHING HONG CREDIT LTD v. SAN TONG LEE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2525/2013

The adverse possession counterclaim was dismissed because (1) the pleadings were deficient and failed to plead the material facts necessary to establish animus possidendi; (2) the evidence failed to prove exclusive possession or the requisite intention — key witnesses were found unreliable and admissions showed most defendants lacked the requisite intention; (3) physical acts and enclosure before 1983 were insufficient to prove dispossession of the paper owner; accordingly LSH is entitled to vacant possession and Ds’ damages counterclaim is dismissed.
10 Oct 2025

LO WO LUN v. IP WING SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1699
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2231/2019

The court accepted plaintiff Lo's evidence as inherently probable and rejected the evidence of D1 and D2 as unreliable; Lo had been in adverse possession of the Red Line Area for over 12 years and thereby acquired a possessory title and the paper owner (through D2) is time‑barred under Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 from recovering possession; D1's claims and D2's counterclaim were dismissed; D3 proved adverse possession of the Enclosed Area for over 12 years and acquired a prescriptive easement/right of way by lost modern grant over the Purple Portion; plaintiff's claim for a vehicular right o…
9 Oct 2025

CHENG HANG FONG and CHENG TSAN CHEUNG suing as administrator of the estate of CHENG CHUNG PING, Deceased v. LOK KAM WING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1639
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6217/2019

Leave to appeal refused because applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the intended grounds predominantly seek to reargue and overturn trial findings of fact without demonstrating the findings were plainly wrong or that the judge erred in law; challenges to refusal of late amendment and evidential weight lack merit; therefore threshold for leave under s63A(2) not met.
25 Sept 2025

LOK KWAN FORMERLY KNOWN AS LOK SUI KWAN v. WONG YU CHI

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1523
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1002/2024

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving factual possession and animus possidendi: cultivation and occasional use (lychee growing, harvesting, later parking and gatherings) without enclosure or acts showing exclusion of the world at large did not constitute exclusive physical control required for adverse possession; therefore the application for declaratory relief was dismissed.
15 Sept 2025

OZNER WATER INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. ERNST & YOUNG (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA455/2023

The Court found the plaintiffs committed material non-disclosure by failing to disclose to the Masters the Exemption Clauses in the GT&Cs which were objectively material because they could be enforced by EYHM under CRTPO and could constitute a complete or viable defence negating any serious issue to be tried; accordingly all Leave Orders for service out and extensions were set aside and no re-grant was made because the non-disclosure was sufficiently serious and not inadvertent such as to justify relief.