29 Aug 2022
YIP HEI v. WONG WAN SO
- Citation
- [2022] HKDC 911
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ5836/2020
[2022] HKDC 911
Hong Kong Case Law
Possession and animus possidendi
20 Dec 2017
MO SUNG LOI also known as MO CHUNG WAH v. TSE MAN FU
- Citation
- MO SUNG LOI also known as MO CHUNG WAH v. TSE MAN FU
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ4125/2013
On the evidence (aerial photographs, electricity records, tenancy receipts, Lands Department records and witness evidence) the court found continuous adverse possession of the disputed land by the defendant’s family from c.1976 (tenant Tse S) through Lee (tenant 1991-2008) and by the defendant from December 2008 to at least February 2014; each possessor manifested animus to exclude the world; therefore the plaintiff’s title was extinguished under s17 LO and the defendant holds a possessory title; plaintiff’s claims dismissed and counterclaim for declarations granted.
24 Jan 2017
HO LUNG THOMAS IGNATIUS the administrator of the estate of YAU CHUN WING , deceased v. ALL OCCUPIERS of ALL THAT AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- HO LUNG THOMAS IGNATIUS the administrator of the estate of YAU CHUN WING , deceased v. ALL OCCUPIERS of ALL THAT AND ANOTHER
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCMP1493/2016
The court found the 2nd defendant's affirmation raised substantial triable issues on intention to possess, factual possession and encroachment/tenant issues such that the matter is unsuitable for determination under Order 113; accordingly the originating summons was to be continued as if begun by writ and the parties given directions for pleadings and trial preparation.
20 Jul 2015
CHOY KUEN CHI v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO LTD
- Citation
- CHOY KUEN CHI v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO LTD
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA915/2011
Plaintiff proved continuous exclusive possession with requisite intent from about 1983 such that, on the balance of probabilities, defendant's paper title was extinguished by Limitation Ordinance s17; potential breaches of the Buildings Ordinance or New Grant concerned means of occupation and did not, on these facts and in absence of public‑policy reasons to the contrary, bar application of the Limitation Ordinance, so declaratory relief extinguishing defendant's title was granted while registration and other ancillary proprietary declarations were refused.
11 Nov 2011
黄景廉 v. 牡丹大厦業主立案法團
- Citation
- 黄景廉 v. 牡丹大厦業主立案法團
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ2313/2009
On the facts the judge preferred Wong's evidence and found he had continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the Lane from 1987; by the time of the IO's re-entry in 2008 and commencement of proceedings the 20-year limitation period had elapsed and under Limitation Ordinance s7(2) and s17 the owners' title was extinguished, entitling Wong to declaratory relief and nominal damages; the IO's counterclaim was dismissed.
26 Aug 2004
CHENG AH KIU v. CHEUNG KAI YAU AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- CHENG AH KIU v. CHEUNG KAI YAU AND ANOTHER
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCMP2071/2002
The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities exclusive physical possession and the requisite animus possidendi for the uninterrupted 20-year period prior to January 2002; documentary and photographic evidence and witness credibility favoured the registered owner (Madam Cheng) whose survey plans and use showed continued possession; therefore adverse possession was not established and the registered owner's claim to possession succeeds.
17 Jun 2002
WAN KAI WAH v. LEUNG MAN FAI
- Citation
- WAN KAI WAH v. LEUNG MAN FAI
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA10622/1994
On the uncontradicted evidence (witnesses, documents, survey plan) the defendant proved continuous exclusive possession with the necessary animus from 1959 over Sections D and E (excluding the fenced Unoccupied Portion); possession exceeded the 20‑year limitation period so plaintiffs' cause of action was time barred and their title was extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance, entitling defendant to the declaration and costs.