Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lost modern grant

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2025

LO WO LUN v. IP WING SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1699
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2231/2019

The court accepted plaintiff Lo's evidence as inherently probable and rejected the evidence of D1 and D2 as unreliable; Lo had been in adverse possession of the Red Line Area for over 12 years and thereby acquired a possessory title and the paper owner (through D2) is time‑barred under Limitation Ordinance Cap 347 from recovering possession; D1's claims and D2's counterclaim were dismissed; D3 proved adverse possession of the Enclosed Area for over 12 years and acquired a prescriptive easement/right of way by lost modern grant over the Purple Portion; plaintiff's claim for a vehicular right o…
30 Sept 2025

FINE HILL HOLDINGS LTD v. CHUNG KWOK KEE JENSSION AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1651
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6745/2024

On the evidence (documentary, aerial photos, survey reports and inferred historical use) the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff and its predecessors had continuous, open and uninterrupted use of the Disputed Path for over 20 years such that an easement by prescription (lost modern grant) was established; the land was historically landlocked and an easement of necessity existed; the 3rd defendants’ non‑contest did not prevent declaration as to their servient tenements; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to declaratory relief, mandatory and prohibitory in…
23 Sept 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HAIPHONG MANSION v. JAMES S. LEE & COMPANY (KOWLOON) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 54
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM138/2021

Leave to appeal refused because the tribunal correctly applied the applicable law (including the Patel test as explained in Monat), its factual findings that IO inaction over decades gave rise to acquiescence and proprietary estoppel (passive encouragement, mistaken belief and detriment) were supported by the evidence, the past illegality had been rectified and did not defeat equitable defences, and the proposed grounds either lack a reasonable prospect of success or would be academic; costs awarded to respondents.
2 Sept 2025

TANG KWOK PONG v. TANG LUN KOK TSO with TANG CHUEN-FAT alias TANG CHUN-FAT, TANG TAK-WAI alias TANG YUT-KWONG, TANG CHUN-SHU and TANG SUN-YIP as managers AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1402
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6519/2024

There is a serious question to be tried on the plaintiff's claim of a prescriptive right of way; damages would not be an adequate interim remedy because the loss of use cannot be quantified, proposed passage fees are unilateral and inappropriate, and the plaintiff's elderly parents face health risks; the plaintiff can give an undertaking as to damages; accordingly an interlocutory prohibitory injunction restraining obstruction of the subject way (width fixed at 4.5 metres) until trial is granted, with costs in the cause and a certificate for counsel.
8 Apr 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HAIPHONG MANSION v. JAMES S. LEE & COMPANY (KOWLOON) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 15
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM138/2021

Tribunal held the pre-2018 A Signs were unlawful but the post-2018 Sign is lawful; on the facts the IO’s prolonged, prominent and unchallenged tolerance for decades amounted to acquiescence, proprietary estoppel and laches which, applying Patel, were not defeated by the historical illegality because the illegality was background and the post-2018 sign is lawful; accordingly equitable defences bar IO’s claims and the IO’s application for declarations, injunctions and mesne profits was dismissed.
21 Feb 2025

CHAN LOI SUN AND OTHERS v. CHAN YUET（OR YUT）WO TSO with CHAN KAM WAI as Manager AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 263
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1699/2023

The summons was dismissed because P1 and P3 lacked requisite locus standi as non-registered owners to claim a proprietary easement, no easement of necessity existed because pedestrian access remained and alternatives existed, and damages (including modest licence fees) constituted an adequate remedy such that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction; accordingly the undertakings were discharged and costs ordered to defendants.
3 Mar 2023

LEE KOK CHE AND OTHERS v. ROYAL MORTGAGE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1308/2015

On the evidence (uncontested), the Suit Access Road existed in substantially the same form since at least 1962, public and Plaintiff use was open, continuous and as of right for over 20 years with no credible objection by servient owners; expert evidence confirmed usability; accordingly plaintiffs acquired pedestrian and vehicular easement by lost modern grant (and alternatively dedication and acceptance), the alleged change of use and illegality did not extinguish the easement, claim against the dissolved BVI-registered defendant (D6) is permanently stayed with liberty to restore, and certai…
4 Nov 2022

LEE KOK CHE AND OTHERS v. ROYAL MORTGAGE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3500
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1308/2015

Leave to amend was granted generally to achieve fair trial management, but the court refused the specific proposed paragraph 20A because its admission at the late stage would cause serious prejudice to the 1st Defendant by likely requiring further discovery and expert evidence and risking vacating the trial dates; other proposed amendments were permitted.
21 Oct 2022

LEADING WELL LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (on behalf of the Director of Lands)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1266/2019

Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of any specific instrument by or by virtue of which an express right of way over Shatin Heights Road was granted; the New Grant contained no such grant, any site plans were not attached or were equivocal, permits and approvals related only to construction and did not constitute grants, clause 2 of Schedule B did not itself create the specific easement claimed, and the doctrine of lost modern grant cannot be used to manufacture an express grant under an instrument; accordingly the claim was dismissed.
30 Jun 2022

KAN SUI YAU AND OTHERS v. WONG TIN LUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1908
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1975/2019

The court will not grant default judgment against D1 and D3 because the plaintiffs' claims are not severable from the claims against D2 who filed a defence; the summons may be treated as brought under O.19 r.7 RHC but, given the non-severability, the Default Judgment Summons is dismissed and the plaintiffs must set down the action for judgment against D1 and D3 at the same time as judgment or trial against D2 (which may include an application for summary judgment).