Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Easement by necessity

  • 5 Dec 2022

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

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3596
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2580/2018

    2nd Defendant made an assurance to the plaintiffs which they relied upon to their detriment and used the defendants' land as the only practical vehicular access for over a decade; proprietary estoppel therefore arose creating an equity enforceable against the defendants including the 1st Defendant in the circumstances of this case; implied easement by necessity failed because there was no common ownership of the two plots at the material time; appropriate relief is a declaration of an easement of right of way and an injunction restraining interference.

  • 19 Jan 2021

    YEUNG CHI WANG v. YEUNG CHI WING

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 17
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4798/2017

    Amendment Summons allowing the defendant to amend the Defence is granted; the Renewed O.14 Summons would in any event have been dismissed because the plaintiff failed to raise a prima facie sustainable case on necessity and prescription and failed to cure deficiencies identified in the earlier Aug 2018 Judgment; costs of the Renewed O.14 Summons are awarded to the defendant, assessed at HK$47,000 on a nisi basis.

  • 12 Oct 2018

    YEUNG CHI WANG v. YEUNG CHI WING

    Citation
    [2018] HKDC 1262
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4798/2017

    Plaintiff awarded 40% of the costs of the summary judgment application on the District Court scale, assessed on a broad brush basis at HK$150,000 in total such that the defendant must pay HK$60,000 within 14 days; the remaining 60% of those application costs are to be in the cause and, if the plaintiff succeeds at trial, will be assessed at HK$90,000 (60% of HK$150,000); if the defendant succeeds at trial his entitlement to costs is not bound by the present summary assessment and must be taxed or agreed; a certificate for counsel to the defendant is granted; no final costs order for the actio…

  • 31 Aug 2018

    YEUNG CHI WANG v. YEUNG CHI WING

    Citation
    [2018] HKDC 1047
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4798/2017

    Clause 3 of the Settlement Agreement was sufficiently certain and intended to commence upon plaintiff's performance of Clause 1 (28 July 2016); defendant's conduct (construction of the New Brick Wall and subsequent correspondence) constituted acceptance/waiver of delay; specific performance ordered granting plaintiff a ten-year right of way along the Designated Route commencing 28 July 2016 and expiring 27 July 2026; defendant must remove remaining offending structures; leave to defend allowed on the separate issue of easement by necessity which raises triable issues about the 1973 situation.

  • 12 Feb 2018

    WONG PUI WAN v. WONG WING KWONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2018] HKDC 160
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ118/2014

    Court held defendants acquired exclusive possession and animus in respect of the area of the disputed hut such that the plaintiff's title to that parcel was extinguished under section 17 Limitation Ordinance; defendants failed to show exclusive possession of the adjacent open space and failed to establish any easement or right of way at Points 1-3 (claims on Wheeldon/prescription grounds were untenable or unpleaded and government land issues meant wrong defendant).

  • 3 Jun 2011

    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

    Plaintiff entitled to an easement/right of way by necessity over the specified area of section C; however plaintiff had no proprietary or contractual right to keep the ramp because that was not pleaded as part of any promise and long use did not create a right to the ramp; plaintiff cannot discharge foul or contaminated water through the drain as this would breach the building licence and public policy; defendants' unilateral digging up of the ramp and access justified plaintiff's injunction application and supports an award of costs to plaintiff.

  • 21 Aug 2009

    WAN YUK WING v. WONG KWOK HING PATRICK AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    WAN YUK WING v. WONG KWOK HING PATRICK AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1713/2007

    Court found on the evidence that a prescriptive easement by lost modern grant over the Disputed Way had been established for agricultural use, but the change of Land A from agricultural to residential use in 1997 constituted a radical change in character and resulted in a substantial increase in burden on Land B so that the easement has been suspended since 1997; the plaintiff’s use of the way for residential purposes without permission therefore constitutes trespass; no easement of necessity was established; concreting was unauthorized and mandatory removal was ordered.

  • 3 Dec 2008

    YEUNG YU CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. BASE KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    YEUNG YU CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. BASE KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV204/2008

    The injunction was discharged and the order granting interim relief set aside because plaintiffs could not demonstrate a serious issue to be tried: objective evidence (aerial photographs and plans) showed the Second Road did not exist for the required 20-year period and the plaintiffs' easement claims (prescription, Wheeldon v Burrows, necessity, public dedication) were untenable; indemnity costs were awarded against the second plaintiff for deliberate falsehood in pleadings and evidence selection.

  • 24 Nov 1992

    TANG TIM FAT AND ANOTHER v. CHAN FOK KEI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TANG TIM FAT AND ANOTHER v. CHAN FOK KEI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA7338/1989

    Defendants failed to prove any legal right of way for vehicular traffic: prescription, presumption of a lost modern grant and the Prescription Act 1832 do not operate to create such a right between lessees of Crown leases in Hong Kong absent fee simple proprietorial involvement; dedication to the public requires consent of the fee simple owner and cannot be presumed against lessees alone; easement of necessity for vehicular traffic was not established given the historical character of the grant. Consequently the defendants have no vehicular right of way; a pedestrian footpath easement was con…