Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Possession vs licence

  • 13 May 2024

    FULLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LIU KIN LAM

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1209
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1443/2019

    Defendant failed to prove adverse possession: his occupation began under consent of his parents (therefore licence) and he did not establish the requisite animus possidendi to exclude the world at large (no effective exclusion measures such as fencing, accessible footpaths, electricity evidence indicating periods of non‑use); at the earliest possession in own right only from 2012, insufficient for 20 years; accordingly plaintiff entitled to vacant possession, mesne profits and costs.

  • 28 Oct 2016

    TSANG FOO KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TSANG FOO KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV178/2015

    The appeal is dismissed because the 1st defendant failed to prove the Chus had the requisite intention to possess the disputed area as owners; their occupation was pursuant to fixed‑pitch hawker licences which, given their terms and regulatory control, made the occupation equivocal and inconsistent with animus possidendi; the alternative argument of Government adverse possession was unpleaded, fact‑dependent and could not be pursued on appeal without evidence from the Government.

  • 30 Mar 2001

    Ng Ka Ho v. Kanic Property Management Ltd.

    Citation
    Ng Ka Ho v. Kanic Property Management Ltd.
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ17055/2000

    There was no contract between plaintiff and defendant (the contract was with Peace View); the arrangement was a licence to park, not a bailment, because there was no relinquishment of exclusive possession or control to the defendants; although a duty of care existed, the defendants provided only a basic parking attendant service and the plaintiff failed to show the defendants breached the reasonable standard of care; accordingly defendant not liable and claim dismissed.