Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of land

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2025

SUN HUNG KAI CREDIT LTD v. TREASURE PROFIT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4641
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1201/2024

The joinder summons is dismissed because the Intended Defendants failed to show a bona fide independent claim to possession required by O.15 r.10 and failed to establish any prima facie case or proper question justifying joinder under either limb of O.15 r.6(2)(b); crucially there is no evidence of the lender's written consent to the tenancies and mere knowledge or toleration by the mortgagee does not create rights binding the mortgagee; joinder would therefore be futile.
7 Mar 2025

CHU SYMON HIN WING and CHU YUM HONG (朱蔭康) as the surviving managers of CHU NAM YUN (OR YUEN)(朱南園) suing on behalf of all members of CHU NAM YUN (OR YUEN)(朱南園) 對羅志民及另四人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 341
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4486/2021

The 4th defendant failed to raise any arguable defence of tenancy because no evidence showed a valid lease granted by the registered owner or by anyone with actual or apparent authority; the alleged counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause and was frivolous; summary judgment was therefore granted for the plaintiffs for vacant possession and the counterclaim was struck out.
9 Sept 2024

王議瑩對葉耀錦及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1422
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5080/2021

The court found the plaintiff had clear, open and continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the rooftop unit from 9 December 2003; under the Limitation Ordinance plaintiff acquired possessory rights by 9 December 2015 and the registered owner lost the right to recover possession; the second defendant unlawfully locked and occupied the unit from 10 August 2018 with the first defendant's authorization such that both defendants were jointly and severally liable for plaintiff's losses; plaintiff awarded HK$302,000 plus interest and costs.
22 Dec 2023

張醒文對温志豪

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1816
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2836/2022

Defendant admitted the 2020 tenancy had ended and did not contest vacating; his pleaded case merely sought monetary compensation for structures and did not disclose a defence that could defeat plaintiff's possession claim or give rise to equitable set-off; therefore the defence was struck out as not disclosing a reasonable cause and/or being frivolous or an abuse under Order 18 r.19(1); judgment for possession, removal orders, mesne profits, interest and costs were ordered.
30 May 2018

MAN CHOI YUK v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2018] HKDC 612
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5162/2017

The Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action because the dispute over title/possession is a private dispute between the plaintiff and a third party, alleged errors by the District Lands Office are public law matters subject to judicial review, and any private law causes (negligence or recovery of land) are time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance; accordingly the SOC must be struck out.
18 Jun 2015

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK WAI t/a WING BO MOTOR CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK WAI t/a WING BO MOTOR CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2851/2013

The application was declined because the applicant failed to identify or prove a viable adverse possession claim beyond the Yellow Area shown on the Sept 2013 plan, the plaintiffs reinstated the prior status quo by erecting the New Fence in the presence of their solicitor and surveyor, and damages were an adequate remedy; thus injunctive relief was not justified.
30 Jan 2015

律政司司長對朱國興

Citation

律政司司長對朱國興
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1310/2012

The application was refused because the defendant's assertions were re‑statements of arguments previously rejected and did not constitute matters arising after the November 21, 2013 judgment that would invalidate it; the proper mechanism for stay pending appeal against a different judgment is Order 59 r13; the defendant's application was therefore outside the scope of Order 45 r11 and amounted to delay, justifying refusal.
22 Oct 2012

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD 訴 THE OCCUPIERS OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF 1 QUEEN’S ROAD CENTRAL, HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD 訴 THE OCCUPIERS OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF 1 QUEEN’S ROAD CENTRAL, HONG KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1271/2012

The judge held that the plaintiff had title and possession and that the public (including the appellants) had only a right to use the property as a public pedestrian passage, which did not permit long‑term occupation or encampment; accordingly the registrar's possession order was upheld and the appellants' counterclaims failed because the disputed items could be retrieved from the plaintiff.
8 Jun 2012

MIMI KAR KEE WONG HUNG v. SEVERN VILLA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MIMI KAR KEE WONG HUNG v. SEVERN VILLA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP243/2011

The court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant a limited stay of execution in very special circumstances; applying that jurisdiction here, given the applicant's submission to judgment, prior conduct, and the narrow scope of relief sought, a short limited stay was appropriate: stay extended only until 4pm on 11 June 2012 for occupancy and until 4pm on 17 June 2012 for removal of the antique collection, with specific directions on insurance, removal logistics and costs.
23 Jun 2010

AEGI CAPITAL LTD v. WAI SIK YIN FELICIA

Citation

AEGI CAPITAL LTD v. WAI SIK YIN FELICIA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP851/2009

Saunders J's findings in the family proceedings that the property belonged to the husband's parents and that the defendant had no proprietary interest, together with the defendant's own evidence and absence of any clear grant by the beneficial owner of a perpetual licence, meant the defendant's right to remain was terminated; the matter was therefore properly decided summarily under O.113 and possession ordered in favour of the plaintiff.