Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Survey evidence

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2024

VALSALAN IVY VIMALA v. CASTKA RICHARD PATRICK JOSEF AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 912
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2668/2018

Tiles laid on the ground were not proven to be reliable surveyed occupations; applying the Code of Practice principles the court adopted Chan's earlier survey as authoritative; the fence encroaches into section H by 0.080 metres and must be demolished to that extent; defendants to pay plaintiff's costs on a party-and-party basis assessed at HK$588,475.67.
28 Apr 2017

SHENZHEN CTS INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. DAJIANG INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

SHENZHEN CTS INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. DAJIANG INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1927/2016

The stay was dismissed because the defendant by its conduct had submitted to Hong Kong jurisdiction (having sought interlocutory relief including security and striking out), it failed to demonstrate any arguable defence such as would justify a stay, and Hong Kong is the natural forum with the most real and substantial connection (witnesses, evidence, detained cargo); clause 19 did not oust Hong Kong jurisdiction and PRC proceedings did not render the GZ Court clearly more appropriate.
13 Oct 2016

CHINA EAST INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA EAST INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3438/2015

The summary procedure under Order 113 was inappropriate because there were substantial disputed facts (notably the location of boundaries and the history of fences) and the plaintiff's survey evidence lacked expert supporting reports and direct expert testimony; issues including adverse possession therefore require trial with pleadings rather than decided on originating summons, so the summary application must be dismissed and the matter proceed to full proceedings.
6 Jan 2014

CHAN KWAI CHOI v. TSANG YUEN KIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KWAI CHOI v. TSANG YUEN KIU AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3889/2011

Court found credible evidence that the plaintiff occupied Lot 199 under an oral licence from the deceased which left an access opening and that HCSL surveyors entered the land in Dec 1994 and Feb 1995 (and TASL in 2010) with owner/authorised access; thus plaintiff did not possess the land adversely or exclusively with animus possidendi for the statutory period and failed to extinguish defendants’ paper title. Plaintiff’s adverse possession claim dismissed and defendants entitled to possession and ancillary relief.
9 Sept 2013

HOPEFUL MEAT LTD v. WAN WOO FROZEN MEAT LTD

Citation

HOPEFUL MEAT LTD v. WAN WOO FROZEN MEAT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4533/2011

There was no sale by sample because there was no discussion or knowledge of unit size at the time of the Second and Third sales, no express term was established, the five-fold test for implying a term failed on the facts, and the survey report was unreliable (mixing goods) and could not establish the size of goods from the First Invoice; therefore Wan Woo wrongfully rejected the goods and Hopeful Meat was entitled to recover the shortfall and storage charges net of allowable deductions; Wan Woo's counterclaim was dismissed.
22 Jun 2009

KEEP PLUS CO LTD v. LAU KAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

KEEP PLUS CO LTD v. LAU KAU AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4487/2007

Production of a surveyor's report did not discharge the duty to provide further and better particulars under the consent order because the report did not answer historical or descriptive particulars sought (notably the status of the land in 1958, the footprint/location of structures in 1958 and differentiation of 91E Ng Ka Tsuen from Lot No.491). The appeal was allowed: the Master's dismissal was set aside and the defendant was ordered to file the outstanding particulars by a fixed date; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
29 Jun 2007

WONG YUEN, MAISIE v. YUE LEUNG PUI

Citation

WONG YUEN, MAISIE v. YUE LEUNG PUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11140/1999

The Master was correct to partially set aside the Writ by deleting the descriptive words because the Writ, as enforced, threatened trespass against occupiers of a structure standing on government land and the Plaintiff either knew or ought to have known the description had become inappropriate; the Applicant had sufficient interest (de facto possession/possession against trespass) to apply; given the Plaintiff's conduct in seeking enforcement despite the changed circumstances, the Plaintiff must pay all costs of the application and costs of the appeal (certificate for counsel, taxed if not ag…
28 Aug 2006

LAU WING HONG AND OTHERS v. WONG WOR HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU WING HONG AND OTHERS v. WONG WOR HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1454/2003

Amendment to substitute Plan V(a) is allowed because the matters of time and area were central throughout and the amendment is not shown to cause uncompensatable prejudice; however the court requires confirmation that the coordinates in Plan V(a) are identical to the plaintiffs' coordinates and, if not, plaintiffs have grounds to seek adjournment; costs are reserved to trial end.
21 Jan 2004

TANG SENG AND ANOTHER v. TANG KUEN KWAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG SENG AND ANOTHER v. TANG KUEN KWAI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16533/2001

Judge accepted plaintiffs' surveyor demarcation of Lot 951 but found on the facts that the 1st defendant and his family had exclusive, continuous possession of the orange and indigo enclosed area since 1967, satisfying factual possession and animus under Pye; the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance did not defeat ongoing possession; therefore plaintiffs' claim against 1st defendant dismissed and 1st defendant's adverse possession counterclaim succeeds, extinguishing plaintiffs' title to that part under section 17 Limitation Ordinance.
4 May 2001

C.K. HAIR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. KAM YIN SHAN CHRISTINE AND ANOTHER

Citation

C.K. HAIR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. KAM YIN SHAN CHRISTINE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5309/2000

The Ord.14 application was dismissed because the defendants adduced sufficient evidence to raise triable issues on the plaintiff's goodwill in the initials C.K. and on whether the defendants' use caused or was likely to cause damage; those issues require trial. Because the issues were apparent from the defendants' defence filed earlier, the matter falls within Ord.14 r.7 and costs are awarded against the plaintiff.