Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages for trespass

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2020

TANG LUI LEO v. WONG ELAINE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1433/2012

On the evidence, including contemporaneous messages and conduct, the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff intended to make an immediate, complete gift of the property to the defendant (pressured by infatuation and the defendant's demands). The transfer was therefore an unqualified gift; presumptions of resulting trust did not apply. Accordingly the plaintiff's claim failed; the defendant is the sole legal and beneficial owner and the plaintiff has trespassed since at least 1 August 2012 and owes mesne profits, to be assessed with interest.
10 Sept 2009

THOUSAND TREASURE INVESTMENT LTD v. PINKTON LTD

Citation

THOUSAND TREASURE INVESTMENT LTD v. PINKTON LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3540/2006

Defendant failed to prove uninterrupted adverse possession of the encroached 34 sqm for the required 12 years; tenancy and the repossession of Unit 38 by Jun Time Limited in December 1996 interrupted any running of adverse possession, so the plaintiff's claim was not time-barred and judgment is entered for the plaintiff.
22 Aug 2002

Wong Ho-wing v. Wong Ho-kwan

Citation

Wong Ho-wing v. Wong Ho-kwan
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ203/2002

Plaintiff proved sole ownership by survivorship and the defendant failed to prove an irrevocable licence; any licence held terminated on the licensor's death and on notice from the plaintiff; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to possession, a declaration and an injunction, and damages assessed at market rental value ($1,900 per month) from 19 December 2001 to date together with interest and costs on an indemnity basis.
30 Mar 2001

PROSPEROUS TONE LTD. v. PEARL FAME DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

PROSPEROUS TONE LTD. v. PEARL FAME DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2196/2000

The court found the express grant contemplated vehicular traffic including construction vehicles; the contemporaneous design surcharge of 11.5 KPa was consistent with HA (normal highway) loading as applied to retaining walls and sufficient to permit 24 tonne vehicles; the Plaintiff did not prove a physical limitation to 5.5 tonnes or that use by 24 tonne trucks would destabilize the No.7 caisson and retaining wall; accordingly the injunction limiting vehicles to 5.5 tonnes was refused, but the Defendant was ordered to monitor the retaining structures and to restore railings and was restrained…
29 Jun 1999

POON YUET CHUN v. TSE SO KWAN

Citation

POON YUET CHUN v. TSE SO KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8006/1993

The court found the Chinese document (P-1), the payment evidence (via Tsang Cheung) and consistent occupation supported the Plaintiff's equitable interest; the Defendant's account was inconsistent and unreliable; forensic evidence did not support post-signature alteration; applying equitable principles and presumption of advancement, legal title held by Defendant is declared held on trust for the Plaintiff as to one half share and Plaintiff is entitled to exclusive possession of the 1st floor and damages for trespass at market rental; no proven conversion liability against the Defendant.
7 Jun 1995

SUNG MEI CHI v. STONE TARGET LTD.

Citation

SUNG MEI CHI v. STONE TARGET LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV56/1995

The defendant failed to prove a possessory title by limitation and thus could not lawfully remain in occupation; the plaintiff, as registered owner, was entitled to possession; the High Court was a proper forum for the claim and costs on the High Court scale were rightly awarded.
23 Sept 1992

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CHUNG CHI COLLEGE AND ANOTHER v. CHANWAY INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

Citation

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CHUNG CHI COLLEGE AND ANOTHER v. CHANWAY INVESTMENT CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV61/1992

Order 28 rule 8 should be given effect so that proceedings begun by originating summons may, once ordered under that rule, continue as if begun by writ permitting claims (including damages for trespass) that flow from the cause of action and relating back to commencement; however the judge lacked inherent jurisdiction to transplant directions into a not-yet‑instituted action absent rule or statutory authority, so the March 30 order was vitiated and must be set aside with restoration of the earlier order for directions and pleadings in the original proceeding.
22 Feb 1971

HO SHIU-KWONG v. AU-YEUNG LEUNG t/a SZE SEK LADIES SHOES AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO SHIU-KWONG v. AU-YEUNG LEUNG t/a SZE SEK LADIES SHOES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV28/1970

The Full Court held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside a concluded consent judgment entered on 16 May 1970; a consent order embodying parties' agreement, when perfected into a judgment, cannot be reopened by the Commissioner in the absence of fraud, mistake or fresh proceedings; equitable doctrines regarding relief against forfeiture and 'time not of the essence' do not authorize varying a concluded consent judgment under the circumstances and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment and payment out of sums in court.