Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession orders

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. UNIVERSAL TALENT INC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP72/2025

The court found credible, triable issues: DBS Bank failed to give reasons for demanding immediate repayment and there is an arguable breach of banker-customer confidentiality which could, on the evidence, have caused loss of a major client and consequent repayment failure; those issues are not suitable for summary determination under Order 88 and warrant conversion to writ and unconditional leave to defend.
8 Jan 2026

香港平民屋宇有限公司對關偉建

Citation

[2026] HKDC 29
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5509/2023

Applications refused because none of the defendants demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or other grounds warranting leave or variation of interim costs; costs were ordered to follow the event as per the rules; applications for stays of enforcement were refused given lack of arguable appeals and potential prejudice to the redevelopment and other tenants, subject to plaintiff's undertaking to delay enforcement until 1 February 2026 in lieu of a stay.
24 Nov 2025

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (MACAU) LTD 對協上有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5983
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP624/2024

The application for an extension was dismissed because the delay of about one year was inordinate and unexplained (no supporting affidavit), the second defendant failed to justify adjourning to seek legal aid or advice, and the proposed grounds of appeal had no real prospect of success (the professional investor defence failed on authority and the misrepresentation allegations lacked reliance and were merely sales talk).
19 May 2025

HO KIN WING DENNIS v. SIT YAU LAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 826
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3430/2016

The court accepted the objective aerial and photographic evidence together with credible witness evidence that the Plaintiff and predecessors cultivated and exercised sufficient exclusive physical control and animus possidendi over the whole disputed lot from about 1997/1998 (or at latest by erection of fencing in 2004) continuously to 2016; accordingly limitation had run and the Defendant's registered title was extinguished, entitling the Plaintiff to a possessory title and declarations sought; counterclaim dismissed.
2 May 2025

FU TAT CREDIT LTD v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1759/2012

The summonses for stay of execution were dismissed because the applicant relied on the wrong statutory rule (Order 45 r11) and, on the correct basis (Order 59 r13), he has no arguable appeal: the procedural complaint was addressed at trial by adjournment and appointment of a guardian ad litem and the trial judge's primary findings that the transactions were for Father's benefit and that consent was freely given were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong; therefore no exercise of discretion to grant a stay was justified.
2 May 2025

HUI MEI CHING trading as DIAMOND DRAGON FINANCE COMPANY v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1905/2013

The Summonses were dismissed because Order 45 r 11 was inapplicable (no new matters since judgment) and Father had no arguable appeal under Order 59 r 13—the procedural fairness claim was unfounded on the trial record and the undue influence grounds amounted to impermissible challenges to primary findings of fact which are not reasonably open to reversal; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.
2 May 2025

FU TAT CREDIT LTD v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1757/2012

Order 45 rule 11 did not apply because no matter occurring after the judgment was relied upon; under Order 59 rule 13 Father failed to demonstrate even an arguable appeal on the pleaded grounds (which were primarily factual challenges to findings that the transactions were for Father's benefit and entered into freely), and therefore there was no basis to exercise the court's discretion to stay execution; the summonses were dismissed and costs ordered against Father.
18 Feb 2025

FU TAT CREDIT LTD v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 723
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1757/2012

The court found plaintiffs proved the loan advances and enforceability of the loan agreements and legal charges; defendants failed to establish undue influence, unconscionability, forgery, economic duress or breaches of MLO sufficient to render the agreements unenforceable; Father’s hearsay statements were given no weight and the Son was an unreliable witness; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiffs with possession and specified monetary awards and interest as set out in the orders.
18 Feb 2025

HUI MEI CHING trading as DIAMOND DRAGON FINANCE COMPANY v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 723
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1905/2013

The court found plaintiffs established the loan advances, possession of executed documentation and compliance with statutory formalities; defendants' central factual assertions (Father's denial and Son's claims of forgery/oral agreement) were discredited or without weight (Father's statements given no weight due to dementia and lack of contemporaneous evidence; Son found inherently unreliable and admitted signatures). There was no proven undue influence, unconscionable bargain or illegitimate economic duress, and no breach of MLO s18(1) established to render agreements unenforceable. Therefor…
8 Jan 2025

CREDIT ONE FINANCE LTD v. LOK PAK FUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 270
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1486/2022

Credit One was equitably subrogated to the prior SCB acquisition mortgage to the extent of the monies it paid (about HK$3.5m) and, because an acquisition mortgage has priority over any asserted beneficial ownership, Credit One possessed a superior right to possession; the Intended 2nd Defendant therefore had no arguable superior claim to possession and joinder was properly dismissed and the registered notices were to be vacated.