Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Squatter's title

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2018

NG MO CHING the administratrix of the estate of NG SHIL MING, deceased AND ANOTHER v. The Estate of TONG SHUN, deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA849/2016

The court found the plaintiffs established the 1953 agreement and sufficient evidential possession to enforce that equitable interest and ordered transfer in accordance with the draft; the Master Britton order of 13 September 1994 was set aside insofar as it related to lots 51A and 211A on the basis of mistake and the unusual procedural history including the 2nd defendant's non‑opposition and lack of evidential support for fraud; costs were reserved as no order due to lack of evidence of fraud and complexity of title.
29 May 2014

JADE’S REALM LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS for and on behalf of THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Citation

JADE’S REALM LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS for and on behalf of THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1509/2012

The application for inspection was dismissed because the Defendant failed to show inspection was necessary or would assist determination of the disputed issues: there was no real dispute as to the location of the enclosed area, inspection cannot determine historic lot boundaries or the dates when structures were first erected, the Defendant's pleaded case did not require site inspection to resolve liability, and ordering inspection for mesne profits or mediation was premature given the split trial on liability.
29 May 2013

TSANG HIN KEUNG AND OTHERS v. NG KWAI HING

Citation

TSANG HIN KEUNG AND OTHERS v. NG KWAI HING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA829/2008

On the evidence and applying the twofold test for possession, the court found that Wong had acquired possessory title by adverse possession to the 1st and 2nd Land (House 12) since 1977 and to the 3rd Land (House 6) since 1983; TWST proved receipt of rent in respect of the 4th Land constituting a tenancy so TWST retained title and Ng had not established uninterrupted adverse possession; accordingly plaintiffs' actions were dismissed insofar as they sought recovery of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Lands, declarations of possessory title were granted to Wong for those lands, and possession and restorati…
29 Oct 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV138/1996

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to adduce material facts establishing a meritorious defence or to rebut the statutory prima facie evidence created by s33(8) of the Buildings Ordinance; absent evidence of non-annexation, the default judgment stands.
29 Oct 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV139/1996

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to adduce any material facts to rebut the statutory presumption created by s33(8) of the Buildings Ordinance and therefore failed to show a meritorious defence to the Building Authority's claim; mere speculation about non-annexation is insufficient to set aside a default judgment.
29 Oct 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV135/1996

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to adduce material facts to rebut the statutory presumption in s33(8) of the Buildings Ordinance and did not establish that the structures were not annexed such that the s26(1) notices were ineffective; therefore there was no meritorious defence to set aside the default judgment.
29 Oct 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV140/1996

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to adduce material facts to rebut the statutory presumption created by s33(8) of the Buildings Ordinance or to show lack of annexation; absent a viable meritorious defence the default judgments could not be set aside.
29 Oct 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV133/1996

Appeals dismissed because appellant failed to produce material facts to displace the statutory presumption created by s33(8) of the Buildings Ordinance and therefore had no arguable defence that the structures were not annexed to the land.
29 Oct 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAT FUNG ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV134/1996

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to put forward factual material capable of displacing the prima facie statutory presumption created by s33(8) of the Buildings Ordinance and therefore failed to show a meritorious defence to justify setting aside the default judgment.