12 Jul 2023
Plaintiffs established continuous exclusive physical possession and the requisite intention to exclude others from 1992, the cause of action accrued in 1992 so the 12‑year limitation expired and the defendant's title was extinguished; plaintiffs therefore hold an indefeasible possessory title though not a right to be registered as proprietor.
15 Jun 2016
The court granted the vesting order because the applicants, as proved executors of the estate of Liu Keung, produced sufficient evidence of their appointment and of the title to the property such that a vesting order under section 45 of the Trustee Ordinance was appropriate to pass the legal estate to them.
20 Dec 2013
Where a solicitor was retained and paid in the context of an intended conveyancing transaction and actively participated (including retaining title deeds), it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty to advise the lay purchasers of the distinction between the documents prepared and an immediate transfer of title and of the inherent risks; the 2nd Defendant breached that duty and the breach caused the Plaintiffs' loss; the appeal is dismissed.
9 Nov 2011
The plaintiff failed to prove both requisite factual possession and intention to possess to the exclusion of the true owner; statements that he would have paid rent if requested and evidence such as rates demands in the defendant's name undermined animus possidendi; bound by Wong Tak Yue, the claim for adverse possession fails and is dismissed.
8 Nov 2010
The court found that defendants failed to prove continuous adverse possession for the requisite period and failed to prove any tenancy conferring possessory title; objective aerial photographic evidence and credibility findings established cessation of cultivation after 1988 and insufficient evidence of possession through 1999, therefore Ricas Properties' title was not extinguished and plaintiff is entitled to recover possession.
9 Aug 2001
The plaintiff proved that his father purchased Lot 1120 in 1945 as evidenced by the contemporaneous Chinese written agreement and the credible oral evidence; part performance (payment and possession) vested an equitable interest in the plaintiff's family which was not defeated by limitation or laches; the defendants' later succession memorials and assignments were ineffective to convey title because the Cheung brothers had already disposed of their interest; accordingly declarations of ownership and entitlement to compensation were granted.
11 Jun 1996
The court granted the declaration that the Deed of Rectification and Confirmation was sufficient to rectify the obvious errors in the Assignment because the Assignment plainly referred to the wrong car park and plan, the 1st Plaintiff had no estate in Car Park 95 at the time of the purported assignment so no reassignment to the 1st Plaintiff was possible, and the Land Registry's refusal to register the rectifying deed without a court order was unjustified; accordingly registration should be permitted and the Plaintiffs ordered to pay costs and indemnify stopped fees.
14 May 1984
The authenticated 1922 Deed of Conveyance, corroborated by continuous possession and rent receipts and by District Land Office memorial indexes, establishes that the land was sold to the plaintiffs' father in 1922; accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaratory relief sought (paragraph 9(3) of the Statement of Claim).
12 Jun 1948
Because the applicants had a registered assignment prior to the lis pendens, were bona fide purchasers for value without fraud, and the respondent delayed registering the lis pendens until after registration, the prior unregistered agreement could not bind the registered owners and the lis pendens was properly vacated.