Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trespass to land

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2026

CHAN FONG KIT v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KIN WING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 494
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6528/2020

Plaintiff failed to prove intentional or persistent trespass or obstruction by SNC or that the IO breached its DMC/BMO duties; snapshot photographs and videos showed momentary crossings or loading/unloading in a constrained common area managed by IO security, which fell within permissible management conduct and de minimis doctrine; delineation and UBW issues were not live or resolved, therefore injunctive reliefs and damages were not justified and both claims were dismissed.
13 Jan 2026

HANG TAT SING INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. CHI WO TAN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 129
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2989/2016

The court accepted the plaintiff's survey evidence that the Occupied Areas lie within Lot 472B; the 1st defendant failed to prove continuous exclusive possession for the requisite limitation period for any of the coloured areas and thus failed on adverse possession; the 1st defendant failed to establish the required mistaken belief and plaintiff knowledge for proprietary estoppel; the retaining wall and raised fill were unauthorised and the 1st defendant failed to demonstrate their safety by acceptable geotechnical investigations and calculations, so no special circumstances justified withhol…
7 Jan 2026

GOLDRISE INVESTMENT LTD v. MAK WAI KWAN ANTONIO

Citation

[2026] HKDC 18
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3650/2025

Application dismissed: plaintiff's pleaded retractions of previously accepted repudiations were legally unarguable (once repudiation accepted it cannot be withdrawn) so claims founded on the original licence agreements failed; the trespass claim was too vague and imprecise as to the subject area and boundaries; consequential damages and dispossession claims could not be finally determined on the pleadings; therefore final judgment in default was refused and the plaintiff must proceed to trial with necessary pleading amendments.
21 Oct 2025

GOLDRISE INVESTMENT LTD v. MAK WAI KWAN ANTONIO

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1589
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3650/2025

Defendant has not shown an arguable defence; photographic evidence demonstrates continuous and obstructive occupation of the passageways and loading bay reducing access and creating hazards such that damages would not be an adequate remedy; applying American Cyanamid and Yeko Trading the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory relief and the court grants the mandatory and prohibitory injunctions sought (paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summons) until trial or further order.
25 Feb 2025

梁偉珍對香港創毅控股有限公司/營運(香港創毅保安cpsc) 香港創毅物業服務顧問有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 778
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP391/2024

The claim was struck out because the venue at issue is part of private estate common parts governed by the Deed of Mutual Covenant which empowered the manager to require removal of the placard and exclude non-residents; the video evidence showed no unlawful eviction or intentional destructive interference and any contact with the placard was accidental and not trespass; the plaintiff therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the claims were frivolous and bound to fail; the holding company had no pleaded basis for liability as operator and its claim likewise disclosed no reasonable…
10 Oct 2024

LAU KWOK HUNG (AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAU WO alias LAU YICK WO, THE DECEASED) v. WH AH JEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2733
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1071/2022

The court held the theft averment in paragraph 24 was not plainly irrelevant or bound to fail because damages for trespass can encompass trespass to goods and conversion; particulars could be provided (police report exists) and evidential criticisms did not justify striking out at interlocutory stage. Consequently the Master’s orders striking out the theft allegation and refusing leave to include the police‑report allegation were set aside and leave to amend was granted to include the Proposed Amended Defence and Counterclaim in full, with directions for a draft order and costs assessment.
27 May 2024

HORN KING LTD v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 773
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ296/2018

Defendants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and to the compelling standard required, continuous exclusive factual possession and animus possidendi of Garage Space B2 for any continuous 12‑year period up to the commencement of the action; plaintiff's title was therefore not extinguished, defendants were trespassers (1st defendant from November 2015; 2nd defendant from May 2020), and plaintiff was entitled to possession, declarations, injunctions and mesne profits as assessed by the expert valuation.
18 Jan 2024

CHAN SAU KWEI CHRISTOPHER v. KAN YAN TING EDWIN alias KAN CHI HUI

Citation

[2024] HKDC 52
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4437/2007

Plaintiff, as legal owner by survivorship, retains the prima facie beneficial title; defendant failed to prove the Purported Trust Document was executed or that any trust existed (original not produced, delayed pleading, differing signatures, no testimony or corroborating witness), therefore plaintiff entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits. Damages assessed at HK$11,000 per month from 25 August 2006 to judgment (208 months) totaling HK$2,288,000; costs to plaintiff.
2 Aug 2023

RICH TREND LTD v. 張文房 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2007
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA906/2022

The Court found that the Plaintiff raised a serious issue to be tried as to possessory title and trespass; the Defendants' acts between 17 and 23 July 2022 were not denied; the purported authorisation from Magic Bright was dubious and in any event any authority would have ceased on its dissolution; the balance of convenience favoured preserving the pre‑trespass status quo and removal of the CCTV would cause no undue prejudice; accordingly the ex parte injunction was continued as against the 2nd Defendant and a mandatory order was granted for removal of the CCTV within 28 days.
16 Jun 2023

LOW KUM CHOY v. ALL WRONGFUL AND UNLAWFULLY TRESPASSING OCCUPIER(S) OF A PORTION OF SECTION A OF LOT NO. 139 IN D.D. 238, PAN LONG WAN, SAI KUNG, NEW TERRITORIES

Citation

[2023] HKDC 861
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ406/2023

Default judgment was appropriate on the pleaded facts; the plaintiff as registered owner is entitled to possession and a prohibitory injunction. A mandatory injunction ordering demolition was refused because the relief as framed lacked the required particularity, involved unnamed and potentially innocent occupiers, and the plan did not precisely delineate boundaries sufficient to define what must be demolished.