Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and vacant possession

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2022

LAM MAN CHEUNG v. LAM MAN YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 866
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP375/2021

Clause 3 of the Will, objectively construed, did not create a gift in specie of the Flat; it divided the testator's interest into 100 shares and devised percentages which can be satisfied by proceeds of sale. Absent maladministration, a beneficiary cannot compel an executor to assent. Executors acted within their s54 PAO powers in seeking possession and sale for administration. Therefore the claim for an assent was dismissed and the application for sale and related orders was granted.
2 Mar 2021

黃德忠及另一人對黃炳城

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2188/2017

The court refused all three summons applications: the costs order dated 11 Aug 2020 is valid and plaintiffs may proceed with costs assessment under O.62 r.21; non-sale of the land within the six-month period does not deprive plaintiffs of the right to enforce the costs order and parties should apply if they seek extension or variation; the defendant cannot use these summons to collaterally attack or overturn earlier orders or obtain declaratory relief regarding title; the public notice was lawful; defendant must pay plaintiffs' costs of the summons to be taxed unless agreed.
20 Nov 2017

陳泯諭及另一人對 WONG SAU KING 及另二人

Citation

陳泯諭及另一人對 WONG SAU KING 及另二人
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3532/2016

The 2006 deed of gift creating joint tenancy vested full title in the deceased son by survivorship; that title passed by valid assent to the plaintiffs as administrators. The defendants' case relies on alleged testamentary intentions and oral family allocations which cannot create proprietary rights absent writing; their evidential assertions lacked necessary particulars and were not believable. Any occupation by defendants was at best a revocable licence terminated on death and by notice, so plaintiffs are entitled to immediate vacant possession and mesne profits from 25 July 2016.
24 Oct 2016

LAI TSO PUI AND ANOTHER v. THE OCCUPANTS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAI TSO PUI AND ANOTHER v. THE OCCUPANTS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP410/2012

Plaintiffs proved superior title and entitlement to vacant possession. Defendants failed to prove exclusive, continuous and open possession for the statutory period; key defence witnesses were discredited and their evidence insufficient to extinguish plaintiffs' title under the Limitation Ordinance. Counterclaim for possessory title is dismissed and possession is awarded to plaintiffs; costs follow the event.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAM MAN CHEUNG v. LAM MAN YIN AND ANOTHER

黃德忠及另一人 對 黃炳城

陳泯諭及另一人 對 WONG SAU KING 及另二人

LAI TSO PUI AND ANOTHER v. THE OCCUPANTS AND ANOTHER

黃德忠及另一人對黃炳城

陳泯諭及另一人對 WONG SAU KING 及另二人