Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Tenancy and possession

  • 9 May 2025

    鄧齊安 對 鄧澤武

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 751
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2527/2020

    The court refused to admit the HCA154 claim statement and the solicitor correspondence because they lacked sufficient relevance and importance to this case under Ladd v Marshall (the facts and parcels differ and the material did not demonstrate the 2021 lease excluded the plaintiff); the defendant's explanations for late production were inconsistent and inadequate and self‑representation/legal ignorance do not justify admission; consequently the defendant's appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) and no other compelling reasons existed, so leave to appeal and the applicatio…

  • 3 Apr 2003

    TANG TAK HONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG YAT FUK

    Citation
    TANG TAK HONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG YAT FUK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV203/2002

    Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted under section 22(1)(b) because the specific legal question—whether a squatter who has granted a tenancy can rely on the tenant's occupation to satisfy the requisite period of possession and thereby have the limitation period run in his favour under section 13(1) of the Limitation Ordinance—was unresolved by existing authority and appropriate for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.

  • 19 Feb 2002

    TANG TAK HONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG YAT FUK

    Citation
    TANG TAK HONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG YAT FUK
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3265/1996

    The plaintiffs failed to establish continuous adverse possession for the required limitation period: the 1st Plaintiff's actual occupation ended when he granted the tenancy in 1967 and the tenant's occupation cannot be attributed to the landlord for limitation purposes; moreover s.12(3)/s.13(3)(b) do not apply to purported leases granted by a wrongful claimant such that receipt of rent in this case could not be treated as deemed adverse possession. Claim dismissed.