Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Title to land

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2025

黃富英對袁景熹及另三人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5068
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2612/2014

The court found on the balance of evidence that the plaintiff established adverse possession and title to Lot 314 but failed to prove continuous exclusive possession of Lots 312-313 for the requisite period. Key reasons: aerial photographs and joint expert reports demonstrated third‑party access, signs of cultivation by others and absence or removal of buildings/fencing during critical periods; alleged chicken‑farming and tree planting did not prove exclusive possession of Lots 312‑313. Consequently the plaintiff's claim against the registered owner of 312‑313 failed and the registered owner’…
22 Aug 2024

RE WONG TZE SAU

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2244
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1445/2024

Applicant established deceased trustee’s legal title, his own beneficial entitlement and assignment, the existence of the trust, and the absence of any personal representative; those facts constituted clear evidence justifying an ex‑parte final vesting order under s45(e), therefore the court removed the deceased as trustee and vested the Properties in the applicant absolutely.
7 Apr 2017

CHUNG YIU KWAN formerly known as CHUNG CHUN LEE v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

CHUNG YIU KWAN formerly known as CHUNG CHUN LEE v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2652/2016

The plaintiff validly exercised the option by payment of the premium and legal costs and Tak Hing, by its conduct and failure to assert its rights, waived the written notice requirement; consequently Tak Hing held the Flat on trust for the plaintiff at dissolution and the court, exercising its discretion under s45 Trustee Ordinance, ordered that the legal estate be vested in the plaintiff.
7 Sept 2015

LI YUK LING REBECCA v. LIU TAK SHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

LI YUK LING REBECCA v. LIU TAK SHAN AND OTHERS<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1264/2015

The court found the assignment was intended to take effect on 28 July 1994 when the purchase price was paid with mortgage finance; the earlier date on the assignment was an erroneous or escrow date. Because the assignment took effect after the Housing Authority's confirmation dated 28 July 1994, it was valid and the plaintiff proved title; the sale and purchase agreement was ordered to be specifically performed.
23 Jan 2015

HO WAI KWAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN HON KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO WAI KWAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN HON KUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP250/2014

The charging order in 1994 was merely an encumbrance (equitable charge) and did not operate as an alienation or conveyance of Cheng's beneficial interest; it therefore did not destroy any of the unities of the joint tenancy. The charge was discharged before Cheng's death, so survivorship operated and Wong acquired the whole beneficial interest which she validly passed on through the chain of title to the plaintiffs, who have good title.
9 Jun 2014

AMED HOLDING (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG SY KEE AND OTHERS

Citation

AMED HOLDING (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG SY KEE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1879/2012

The application to stay the counterclaim was dismissed because the counterclaim is not properly severable from the Main Action given the common underlying factual background (notably the disputed intention of Father and the shares in AMED HK), the Main Action concerns Hong Kong land and will be heard in Hong Kong, and the Applicants failed to show the Malaysian court was clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum; substantial justice can be achieved in Hong Kong.
13 Feb 2014

RE TANG CHAU SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

RE TANG CHAU SANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3469/2013

There was no personal representative of the deceased trustee and no one to serve; accordingly the court properly exercised its statutory power under section 45 of the Trustee Ordinance to vest the legal interests in the three lots absolutely in the applicants.
5 Nov 2012

CHO TAK PO AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHO TAK PO AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP774/2012

The court found the defendants answered requisitions fully; the 2011 assignment complied with the prior court order; the notarial acknowledgement together with the printed Hong Kong Identity Card number and surrounding circumstances sufficiently established identity and title; plaintiffs' repeated and unreasonable requisitions did not show any real risk to the purchasers; accordingly good title was shown and the originating summons was dismissed with costs to the defendants.
29 Mar 2011

LUNG PO KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAM SHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUNG PO KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAM SHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV164/2010

The Court concluded as matter of fact and construction that the rear wall existed as part of the development at the date of the first assignment and that the blocked-off portion behind it therefore formed part of the common parts; consequently the mandatory injunction compelling the incorporated owners to remove the wall was wrongly made and was set aside. Independently, the owners of CP27 had a proprietary right to unobstructed access and were entitled to a prohibitory injunction restraining Ms Tang from parking CP25 so as to obstruct the passageway to CP27 and to damages of HK$54,000 for lo…
4 Oct 2010

WIDELY SUCCESS (HK) LTD AND OTHERS v. HOLLYWOOD LAND LTD

Citation

WIDELY SUCCESS (HK) LTD AND OTHERS v. HOLLYWOOD LAND LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5851/2008

Hollywood Land did not have title to the disputed corridor area and therefore could not assign a good, encumbrance‑free title to the Plaintiffs; that defect went to the root of title so the contractual 7‑day requisition limit did not bar the Plaintiffs' requisition; Hollywood Land was in breach and misrepresentation, the Plaintiffs validly accepted repudiation on 12 December 2008 and are entitled to return of deposits and damages; counterclaim dismissed.