Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Easement/right of way

Legal area

Court

2 Feb 2024

WONG WAI YING ANITA AND OTHERS v. SO KWAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 140
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1/2023

The Court upheld the trial judge: Wong Ming Kwong made an assurance that the plaintiffs could use Lot 2230 RP for access; plaintiffs relied on that assurance and suffered detriment through exclusive use and lack of alternative access; proprietary estoppel therefore arose and an easement/right of way and permanent injunction were properly declared; a co-owner (tenant in common) can grant such a right over his share that binds other co-owners where it does not adversely affect their possession and rights; appellants failed to show the judge’s findings were plainly wrong.
2 Feb 2024

WONG WAI YING ANITA AND OTHERS v. SO KWAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 140
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV498/2022

The Court upheld the trial judge: proprietary estoppel was established against Wong Ming Kwong because he made an assurance on which the plaintiffs relied to their detriment and used the access for over ten years; the grant of a right of way by a tenant-in-common can bind the other co-owner where it does not interfere with that co-owner’s possession; the trial judge’s factual findings were not plainly wrong; accordingly the declaration of an easement and permanent injunction were justified and the appeals were dismissed.
31 Oct 2022

RICHLANDS PROPERTIES LTD v. THE OCCUPIER(S) of Lot No 1347 in Demarcation District No 102 Yuen Long New Territories Hong Kong AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1643
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP115/2022

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the 2nd defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal against the Judge's factual findings that he did not establish factual possession for the requisite 20 years; the delay was slight but merits were decisive; therefore leave was denied, no oral hearing allowed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
6 Jun 2018

FANTASTIC STATE LTD v. TIEN\'S ORGANIC FARM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA99/2018

Although the Defendants omitted material particulars about vehicular access at the ex parte hearing, the omissions were not shown to be deliberate, the Defendants established serious issues to be tried on both Special Condition 30(a) and prescriptive user (including possible vehicular use), and the balance of convenience favoured continuation because irreparable harm to the Defendants' business could not be adequately compensated by damages; therefore the interlocutory injunction was continued rather than discharged.
25 Jan 2013

CHIN LING INVESTMENT LTD v. THE GENERAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY

Citation

CHIN LING INVESTMENT LTD v. THE GENERAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1/2012

The plaintiff failed to satisfy the threshold for interlocutory mandatory or prohibitory injunctions because the DLO enforcement risk did not justify reopening the earlier undertaking (government enforcement would principally target the defendant under Lester v Ridd), there was no material change of circumstances warranting mandatory demolition, and a less intrusive, practical remedy (defendant relocating the gate within its lot and keeping it open) preserved the status quo and balance of convenience; accordingly the plaintiff's injunction and the defendant's application for release from unde…
4 Jun 2012

LEE YUM SANG v. YEUNG FOOK HONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE YUM SANG v. YEUNG FOOK HONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA638/2009

The court held that the Consent Order already prohibited discharge of anything other than rain water to the rain drainage and that if the plaintiff discharged sewage the proper remedy is a contempt citation, not an injunction; the Consent Order did not expressly authorize nor expressly prohibit installation of manhole/metal plates and such works may be impliedly necessary for restoration — disputes over unauthorized works require separate proceedings; accordingly the summons seeking the directions and injunctions was dismissed.
15 Dec 2005

HANTON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

HANTON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5973/2000

The impugned paragraphs and prayers were struck out because they pleaded claims that depart from the relief sought in the Originating Summons (treated as a writ for these proceedings) contrary to O.6 r.2; the strike out summons was properly brought and the Plaintiff must pay the Defendant's costs of and incidental to the summons (including the hearing), such costs to be taxed if not agreed; time to file Defendant's Points of Defence extended to 28 days from the order.

Hong Kong Case Law

WONG WAI YING ANITA AND OTHERS v. SO KWAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

WONG WAI YING ANITA AND OTHERS v. SO KWAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

RICHLANDS PROPERTIES LTD v. THE OCCUPIER(S) of Lot No 1347 in Demarcation District No 102 Yuen Long New Territories Hong Kong AND ANOTHER

FANTASTIC STATE LTD v. TIEN\'S ORGANIC FARM AND OTHERS

CHIN LING INVESTMENT LTD v. THE GENERAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY

LEE YUM SANG v. YEUNG FOOK HONG AND ANOTHER

HANTON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE