Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Squatter control policy

Legal area

Court

22 May 2024

余靜華 v. 地政總署署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1578/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the applications dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any specific and arguable public law wrong, most lacked standing, the applications were subject to undue delay of many years without good reason, the Policy had been published and accessible, and the Director's challenged actions are land administrative decisions not amenable to judicial review; consequently the applications had no realistic prospect of success and costs were ordered against the applicants.
22 May 2024

彭仁儀 v. 地政總署署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1639/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to identify any specific arguable public law wrong, most lacked standing, the applications were brought after undue delay (decades) without good reason, the squatter control policy has been published and applied, and the Director's actions in handling unlawful occupation are landowner administrative decisions not generally subject to public law review.
22 May 2024

張伯如 v. 地政總署署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1869/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants (save for Mr Cheung) lacked standing, the challenges were brought after inexcusable and substantial delay, the applicants failed to identify any specific and arguable public law wrong, and the Director's enforcement decisions concerning unauthorised occupation of Government land are land administration decisions not amenable to judicial review; cumulatively these defects meant no realistic prospect of success.
22 May 2024

林碧華 v. 地政總署署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1867/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicants (except one) lacked standing, the applications were brought with undue delay (no good reason to extend the 41-year delay), and the claims disclosed no reasonably arguable public law wrong given that the Director's enforcement decisions are land-administrative and not amenable to judicial review; the Policy had been published and the applications were therefore without merit.
22 May 2024

鄧愛明 v. 地政總署署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1638/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed: applicants (except Mr Cheung) lacked standing; applications were brought with undue delay (approximately 41 years) without good reason; the claims were without reasonable arguable merit because the Policy was published and Director's enforcement decisions are not amenable to judicial review; accordingly leave refused and costs ordered against applicants.
27 Apr 2021

TSANG WOON MING v. TSAN HING TAT HEIDI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 482
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3791/2016

Plaintiff failed to prove that he possessed the Lot in his own name with the requisite intention to exclude the world since 1984; occupation was on the facts consistent with family licence/implied consent and not unequivocal adverse possession, proprietary estoppel against defendants (or their predecessors) was not established, but the court found in the parties' dispute that the western boundary favored the plaintiff's surveyor; claim dismissed and defendants' counterclaim for possession granted.
12 Sept 2019

CHONG HING BANK LTD (formerly known as LIU CHONG HING BANK LTD) v. FAIRVIEW CITY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1033
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV468/2018

The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because the applicant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition — the documents could have been obtained and produced at trial with reasonable diligence — and the material was not shown likely to have an important influence on the outcome; Ladd v Marshall test applies and the application was therefore hopeless; order made preventing reconsideration and indemnity costs awarded to the respondents.
14 Nov 2018

LAU TONG MING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2527
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL131/2015

The judicial review fails because there was no operative legitimate expectation or enforceable policy obliging the Director to give the applicant prior warning or a chance to rectify in respect of breach of the No Extension or New Building Rule, and the Court of Appeal authority (Wong Ho Tong v Director of Lands [2018] HKCA 330) confirms the applicant's grounds are bound to fail.
25 Jul 2018

CHONG HING BANK LTD (formerly known as LIU CHONG HING BANK LTD) v. FAIRVIEW CITY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3225/2014

Where successive squatters have enjoyed continuous and exclusive de facto possession and effective control of defined parts of land, they can rely on the cumulative period of possession against the paper owner; registration of structures under the Squatter Control Policy does not, of itself, defeat animus possidendi on private land; accordingly the 5th and 6th Defendants established adverse possession of the Green and Orange Areas and the mortgagee's application for possession of those areas must be dismissed.
7 Jun 2018

WONG HO TONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 330
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV40/2017

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed refusal of extension of time and leave: the applicant's challenges were brought out of time without satisfactory explanation; revocation of GLLs is not amenable to judicial review and the cancellation of SST registrations did not disclose a reasonably arguable public law ground (not Wednesbury unreasonable or disproportionate) based on the material; fresh evidence was inadmissible as late and unpersuasive.