Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prescription (lost modern grant)

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2025

CHING TO YUEN LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PRISTINE VILLA

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 388
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA632/2018

The court held that there was no effective dedication of the Access Road as a public right of way because public use was by permission or tolerance and crucially there was no Government consent or demand for surrender under the lease conditions; further, no easement by prescription arose because the requisite 20 years' uninterrupted use as of right was not established (intensive shuttle use began in 2006 and earlier use was tolerated), therefore Plaintiff's claims failed; Defendant succeeded on counterclaim for declaratory relief and injunction restraining vehicular use without consent; Plain…
27 Aug 2021

RICHLANDS PROPERTIES LTD v. THE OCCUPIER(S) of Lot No 1347 in Demarcation District No 102, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 940
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3807/2016

Section 38A of the Limitation Ordinance applies because the alleged adverse possession began before 1 July 1991, so a 20-year limitation applies; the 2nd defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities continuous exclusive physical possession of the Disputed Area for at least 20 years and thus failed to establish adverse possession or acquire an easement by prescription; accordingly the counterclaim is dismissed and plaintiff entitled to recover possession; costs ordered nisi from 12 April 2017.
8 Apr 2020

KING LUCKY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. NICEWAY CONSULTANTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 524
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA771/2019

Application dismissed because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the requisite strong prima facie case of 20 years' continuous use to establish a prescriptive right of way and failed to prove that the defendants' fence substantially interfered with the alleged easement; additionally the balance of convenience favored defendants given their undertaking and the trivial nature of the alleged injury.
8 Nov 2019

HO KWOK WA AND ANOTHER v. TANG PING KUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2017/2019

The ex parte interim injunction was continued because the plaintiffs' factual assertions went largely unchallenged on the evidence before the court, the first defendant failed to establish an alternative access or show real prejudice, the defendant's conduct demonstrated deliberate obstruction, and damages were not an adequate remedy; on that basis the balance of convenience favoured continuation until trial or further order.
18 Jan 2019

KO SHUN v. ROYAL MORTGAGE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 85
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5242/2018

The summons for an interlocutory mandatory injunction is dismissed because there is no serious question to be tried on the claimed vehicular right of way (the owners of the servient tenements are not parties and the plaintiff as a licensee lacks locus for lost modern grant), public nuisance was not pleaded and private nuisance was not demonstrated; the plaintiff has not shown the high degree of assurance of success required for a mandatory injunction and delay plus available interim parking arrangements undermine any claim of irreparable harm, so the balance of convenience favors the defendan…
8 Jan 2019

YIK WAI PONG v. YICK PAK KIN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 21
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA275/2015

Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral agreement and failed to establish proprietary estoppel, implied easement under Wheeldon v Burrows or s16 CPO, or prescription; use was shown to be permissive and/or insufficiently continuous and apparent at the relevant times, and erection of a locked gate with keys evidenced permission and exercise of ownership rights; accordingly the plaintiff's claims for a right of way were dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.
12 Feb 2018

WONG PUI WAN v. WONG WING KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 160
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ118/2014

Court held defendants acquired exclusive possession and animus in respect of the area of the disputed hut such that the plaintiff's title to that parcel was extinguished under section 17 Limitation Ordinance; defendants failed to show exclusive possession of the adjacent open space and failed to establish any easement or right of way at Points 1-3 (claims on Wheeldon/prescription grounds were untenable or unpleaded and government land issues meant wrong defendant).
30 Aug 2017

YES KEY LTD v. JOINT PROFIT CORPORATION LTD

Citation

YES KEY LTD v. JOINT PROFIT CORPORATION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4148/2014

The court refused the defendant leave to amend because the defendant had clearly admitted in its pleaded defence that the Subject Areas lay within the plaintiff's land and gave no credible excuse to withdraw that admission; the proposed easement pleading was vague and prejudicial; on the merits the defendant failed to prove adverse possession because it did not plead or prove the requisite intention to possess and the factual evidence showed abandonment and new additions inconsistent with long exclusive possession. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff with mandatory and prohibitor…