Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona vacantia

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2025

YEUNG WAI YING, sole executrix of YOUNG YUK FONG aka YUK FONG YOUNG v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3807
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP433/2025

Because Nice Profit was dissolved and the rights vested in the Government as bona vacantia, there is no real prospect of specific performance and the defence of laches would bar enforcement after the substantial delay; therefore the 1996 SPA no longer affects the 18 Lots and the Court would, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, vacate its registration.
11 Mar 2025

WONG YUEN CHUN PHOEBE (formerly known as CHUNG LAN CHI NANCY) v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF YIM HANG WOON, DECEASED

Citation

[2025] HKDC 421
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1948/2023

Where a paper-owner appears to have died intestate without known close relatives, absent a pleaded basis showing surviving issues or prior notification to the Secretary for Justice, the court will not grant final declaratory relief affecting title; the appropriate course is to adjourn and require the claimant to notify the Secretary for Justice and file evidence of compliance before the matter is finally determined.
6 Nov 2024

SHIU HUNG CHUNG v. YIP CHIU LEUNG, THE PERSON APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE OF WONG SUN TAI, THE DECEASED

Citation

[2024] HKDC 778
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ905/2017

The plaintiff established by credible evidence that he had exclusive factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the property from December 1999 for more than 12 years; the Certificate of service under the Hague Convention satisfied Order 11 r5(5) and there was no admissible compelling evidence to displace the presumption of valid service; consequently the defendant's registered title was extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance and the plaintiff acquired an indefeasible possessory title.
31 Oct 2024

SOPHIE TSUI YUK KING (aka LEE TSUI YUK KING SOPHIE) v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3057
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1076/2024

Because the loan was fully repaid and title deeds returned on 11 March 1968 the mortgage ceased then and was not subsisting on 1 November 1984; s.44(3) only converts mortgages subsisting at commencement into legal charges, so conversion did not occur; the Dissolved Company held the legal estate as trustee which vested as bona vacantia on dissolution and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to a declaration of discharge and an order requiring the Registrar to execute a confirmatory reassignment.
27 Mar 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TIMLEY COURT v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP96/2024

The court granted the vesting order because the corporate trustee (the Manager) had been dissolved, the undivided shares had not been assigned to any successor, the IO was entitled under the Deed of Mutual Covenant to be the manager's successor, and the Secretary for Justice disclaimed any bona vacantia claim; these facts satisfied s45 TO enabling the court in its discretion to vest the two undivided shares in the IO as trustee for the owners in accordance with the DMC.
30 Nov 2023

RE ENGLAND CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1548
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3358/2023

The originating summons was adjourned sine die because Col-Win had been dissolved and section 752 Companies Ordinance vests its rights in the Government as bona vacantia; absent any Government confirmation or disclaimer and given the applicant did not notify the Government or propose a manner to proceed, the court could not properly conclude the encumbrancer 'cannot be found' for s12A purposes and therefore would not grant the relief at this time.
20 Oct 2023

RONELL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1543/2023

Given that overlooked assets (the Eco Farm shares) surfaced only after the statutory two-year period and the Applicant had a direct pecuniary interest as a former shareholder, the court exercised its discretionary power under s290(1A) to extend time, revived the company to enable realization of the overlooked assets, and appointed a new liquidator; costs of HK$5,000 were ordered against the Applicant.
13 Sept 2023

RAI JAGINDRA AND OTHERS v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHOW SUN, DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1220
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1369/2022

On the pleaded facts plaintiffs had factual possession and animus possidendi from May/June 2005; their possession therefore exceeded 12 years and, pursuant to section 17 Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), the defendant's rights were extinguished and plaintiffs acquired an indefeasible possessory title as joint tenants; the court may grant declarations in default where pleadings suffice.
11 Sept 2023

LAM MAY POR v. THE ESTATE OF CHAN CHING WOON, DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1219
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1484/2021

On uncontradicted evidence plaintiff proved continuous factual possession and intent to possess from mid-1998, and having possessed the Property for at least 12 years before commencement of proceedings, sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance extinguished the defendant’s title and conferred an indefeasible possessory title on the plaintiff; procedural objections regarding notification of the Official Administrator or bona vacantia were immaterial where Government/DoJ declined to claim and no evidence supported executor de son tort.
20 Jul 2023

CHAN WAI HUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT

Citation

[2023] HKDC 983
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4396/2019

The court held that relativity of title applies: plaintiff acquired exclusive possession of Lot 51 from 2001 until dispossession by the IO in October 2013 and thus has a relatively better possessory title than the IO; IO is estopped from denying plaintiff's relatively better title by its conduct; plaintiff failed to establish adverse possession of the Pathway for the 12 year statutory period because exclusive possession commenced only in the second half of 2002 and animus was not continuous for twelve years; remedies ordered include declaration, delivery of vacant possession within seven days…