Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Title extinguishment

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2024

李威輝對 TIN KWOK KEUNG (田國強) also known as JAMES TIN KWOK KEUNG, the person appointed to represent the estate of CHUNG TING TAI (鍾丁帶), deceased

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1906
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2627/2021

On the evidence, including the surveyor's opinion that the squatter hut (26B) existed from 1957 with extensions 1959–1961, the plaintiff established possession for the requisite period; the defendant, as estate representative, did not contest title and consented to transfer; accordingly, under ss.7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance the defendant's title is extinguished and the plaintiff is granted possessory title, with costs ordered to be paid from the deceased's estate subject to assessment.
1 Nov 2024

陳文倩對鄭邦權及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1810
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1571/2018

The court accepted the defendant proved continuous, exclusive factual possession and clear intention to possess the enclosed area from at latest 15 November 2000 to 11 June 2018, thereby extinguishing the plaintiffs' right to recover the land under the Limitation Ordinance; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed and the defendant vested with possessory title.
26 Feb 2021

CHENG YUK LEUNG v. The Personal Representative of the estate of CHENG AH MANG also known as CHENG WAI MAN, the deceased

Citation

[2021] HKDC 224
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4594/2019

On the pleaded facts, if proved, the plaintiff and his father exercised single and exclusive physical control over the land from circa 1994/1995 with the requisite intention to possess; possession continued after the father's death; therefore the estate's title is extinguished under section 17 Limitation Ordinance and the plaintiff has acquired indefeasible possessory title; under Order 19 rule 7 the court will grant declaratory relief in default where justice requires it.
4 Aug 2017

VIEW MAX INVESTMENT LTD v. 李萬康 AND OTHERS

Citation

VIEW MAX INVESTMENT LTD v. 李萬康 AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1286/2014

Defendants failed to prove factual possession or animus possidendi in respect of Lots 2130, 2136, 2137 and Lot 2195; D5 established factual possession and intention to possess the paved area of Lot 2129 (storage house area) from about 1999; plaintiff entitled to vacant possession of Lots 2130, 2136, 2137, 2195 and the portion of Lot 2129 not extinguished, and a declaration extinguishing the plaintiff’s title to the TS area of Lot 2129 in favour of the 5th defendant; mesne profits awarded nominally at HKD 1 per month from 22 September 2014 to delivery of possession; defendants to pay 90% of pl…
27 Apr 2017

LAU YING YUI v. VERYWELL INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

LAU YING YUI v. VERYWELL INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4871/2015

Judge accepted plaintiff's credible oral evidence and unchallenged surveyor report showing long-term exclusive occupation and acts (fencing, repairs, improvements, habitation) demonstrating animus possidendi from late September 1989; more than 20 years elapsed before writ so Limitation Ordinance extinguished defendant's title; prior consent dismissal did not establish res judicata on the facts; defendant's pleadings and conduct conceded District Court jurisdiction; accordingly adverse possession established and defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
20 Feb 2017

蔡德文訴陳玉蘭及另一人

Citation

蔡德文訴陳玉蘭及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA600/2015

The handwritten agreement was not a written lease under Cap.347 s.12(2); rent ceased after 1992 and the tenancy had ended by January 1994; from that date the plaintiff and family exercised exclusive factual possession and demonstrated animus possidendi by farming, fencing and repairs; therefore adverse possession was complete by 2006 (12 years) and the registered owners' title was extinguished; defendants' contrary evidence was rejected and in any event could not undo completed adverse possession.
12 May 2014

LEE BING CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

LEE BING CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV53/2013

Appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility-based finding that the plaintiff had been in possession of the Government land since at least 1 March 1949; accordingly the 60-year limitation period had run and the Government's title was extinguished under ss 7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, and the doctrine of encroachment entitled the plaintiff to possession until determination of the grant; there was no misappreciation of material evidence warranting appellate interference.
16 Apr 2013

TO HIN CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. All occupier(s) of a portion of Lot No 240 in Demarcation District No 128, Yuen Long, New Territories Hong Kong AND ANOTHER

Citation

TO HIN CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. All occupier(s) of a portion of Lot No 240 in Demarcation District No 128, Yuen Long, New Territories Hong Kong AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1288/2011

The 2nd defendant failed to discharge the heavy burden to prove adverse possession: contemporaneous evidence (notably an electricity bill showing zero consumption for about 17 months), lack of corroborating witnesses and documents, and unreliable testimony meant factual possession and animus possidendi were not established; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim for possession succeeded and the 2nd defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
9 Nov 2011

TSUI KWONG ON v. KOO LING SUNG also known as KOO LAM SAN

Citation

TSUI KWONG ON v. KOO LING SUNG also known as KOO LAM SAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4550/2009

The plaintiff failed to prove both requisite factual possession and intention to possess to the exclusion of the true owner; statements that he would have paid rent if requested and evidence such as rates demands in the defendant's name undermined animus possidendi; bound by Wong Tak Yue, the claim for adverse possession fails and is dismissed.
9 Sept 2010

BRING ALL LTD v. CHOI WAH

Citation

BRING ALL LTD v. CHOI WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2347/2009

The plaintiff had, by exclusive possession, receipt of rents, payment of rates and management fees and refusal of access to the defendant, ousted the defendant and established adverse possession exceeding 12 years; accordingly the defendant's title was extinguished and the plaintiff acquired an indefeasible possessory title, and the court may grant the necessary declarations in default of defence.