Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 17 limitation ordinance

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2025

MELODY GAIN LTD v. PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF THE OCCUPIED AREA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 953
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1510/2017

D2 failed to discharge the burden to prove continuous exclusive factual possession and animus for the requisite period; evidence was sparse, inconsistent and uncorroborated, material witnesses and documents were not produced without adequate explanation and adverse inferences applied; accordingly D2's counterclaim for adverse possession is dismissed and the plaintiff is entitled to an order for possession of the Land.
3 May 2024

HO CHI FAI v. CHU TUNG YUEN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1159
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2094/2022

Plaintiff proved exclusive physical possession and the requisite intention to possess the specified portions of Lot 2977 for the statutory period (12 years); accordingly the defendant's registered legal and beneficial interest in those portions was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance and the plaintiff acquired possessory title; any right of action by the defendant to recover the Property is barred.
8 Nov 2023

NG LAI KUEN v. WONG JUNG MOON, the executor of the estate of WONG LIN SU, deceased

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2821
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2138/2018

The unchallenged evidence established that the plaintiff had factual possession and the requisite intention to possess for at least 20 years from 1987; the defendant did not participate or file evidence; therefore summary disposal under Order 28 r4(1) RHC was appropriate and the declaration of extinguishment of the defendant's right of action and adverse possession in favor of the plaintiff was granted with the commencement date fixed at 1987.
10 May 2018

HUI CHUNG YAU v. HUI HUNG KIM alias LU HAI

Citation

[2018] HKDC 497
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3075/2014

The plaintiff established continuous exclusive adverse possession (and a prior period by his predecessor) exceeding twenty years, the defendant had been effectively ousted by long absence and non‑assertion, and therefore the defendant's legal and beneficial interests were extinguished under Section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, so the plaintiff acquired an indefeasible possessory title.
16 Mar 2018

YEUNG WAI TONG v. SRIKORNVIT PRANEE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 540
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2170/2015

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish proper personal service on the 4th defendant: the person served was not adequately identified, documentary proof of identity was absent, material discrepancies undermined the claim of correct service, and there were unresolved third‑party interests; on that basis the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant the declaratory relief in default.
9 Jun 2017

CHUNG CHIU HING v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LAW SAM, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUNG CHIU HING v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LAW SAM, DECEASED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2384/2011

The court found on facts that exclusive physical possession and intention to possess existed from latest March 1986, therefore adverse possession ran and, applying the applicable 20-year limitation, the paper owner's title was extinguished by operation of Limitation Ordinance s17 in March 2006; the Government's bona vacantia counterclaim was premature because residuary estate had not been crystallised or administered by the Official Administrator and statutory administration processes remained outstanding; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to declarations of possessory ownership and the Secr…
7 Apr 2017

CHAN MICHAEL v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF TAM SIU FUNG, DECEASED

Citation

CHAN MICHAEL v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF TAM SIU FUNG, DECEASED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP745/2015

On the facts the plaintiff demonstrated adverse possession through his tenants from about 1995, the 12-year limitation period under s7(2) expired by about 2007, and by s17 of the Limitation Ordinance the registered owner’s title was extinguished; therefore the plaintiff established a possessory title and is entitled to declarations sought.
24 Dec 2013

KIUWIDE COMPANY LTD v. TSEUNG DING MAN

Citation

KIUWIDE COMPANY LTD v. TSEUNG DING MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1003/2013

On the uncontested evidence the plaintiff proved continuous and exclusive physical possession of the Purple Area and the requisite intention to possess for over 20 years prior to proceedings; therefore under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance the defendant's paper title was extinguished and the plaintiff acquired possessory title; substituted service was sufficiently effected after the plaintiff took appropriate steps to notify the defendant.
10 Nov 2009

YU SIU CHEUK v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

YU SIU CHEUK v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV181/2009

The Recorder erred by confining the determinative issue to proving commencement in late 1979 rather than deciding whether the plaintiff had established continuous adverse possession for the requisite 20 or, alternatively, 12 years prior to the writ; because the trial judge did not make findings on that live issue the appeal is allowed and a retrial ordered.
9 Oct 1997

TANG TAK HONG v. CHEUNG YAT FUK

Citation

TANG TAK HONG v. CHEUNG YAT FUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3265/1996

The plaintiff had possessed the land for longer than the 20-year period prescribed by section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, thereby extinguishing the defendant's title and entitling the plaintiff to a possessory title; declarations were therefore granted.