Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possessory title

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2026

THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2224
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1739/2003

The appeal is dismissed because the disputed expert issues are factual and not genuinely controversial; a single joint expert would reduce unnecessary expert disputes, focus the trial on the substantive issue of adverse possession versus tenancy, and the parties' long delay and non‑compliance with earlier directions justified the Master's 2025 Order and the judge declined to interfere with that case management decision.
8 Apr 2026

YUENG KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN KINGDOM INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 609
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3085/2025

The Plaintiffs failed to prove factual exclusive possession and the requisite intention for the statutory 12‑year period because the Subject Land was accessible to the public via Route 1 from 2000 until at least 2011 and material enclosure features (notably GA3) only appeared circa 2012; accordingly adverse possession was not established and the claim is dismissed.
17 Mar 2026

HO KONG, THE SOLE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FONG MI YEE DECEASED v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 459
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2024

The court granted leave to the Director because the construction of the Home Purchase Allowance policy as to whether an absolute possessory title holder qualifies as an 'owner' raises a question of sufficient general or public importance with potential significant public funding implications; the court refined the question to specify 'absolute possessory title' for clarity and submitted that question to the Court of Final Appeal.
2 Feb 2026

伍銅對 TANG KWAN HO（鄧群好）, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF TANG KAP MUK（鄧甲木）, DECEASED及另三人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 202
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3574/2023

The court found on credibility and documentary/aerial/photo evidence that plaintiffs and their parents exercised exclusive factual possession with the requisite animus from at least late 1967 through 1987 (a continuous 20-year period), that defendants failed to prove any valid lease or consent negating adverse possession, and therefore by operation of the Limitation Ordinance the defendants' registered title was extinguished by 2006; consequent later acts by defendants or their purported tenants could not defeat the possessory title and plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of possessory…
17 Dec 2025

LEUNG MEI KING (suing as Administratrix and surviving daughter of LEUNG SHUN YICK, deceased) v. LI YU MING AND OTHER OCCUPANTS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3120/2015

On the balance of aerial photographs, survey sheets and witness evidence the court found that Mr Wong Sr and thereafter the Defendant had factual possession and the requisite intention to possess Lot 84 from at least July 1994 (and evidence pointed to occupation since 1974), that possession was continuous and adverse, and that payments of government rent or MOT licence did not negate animus; therefore the Defendant established title by adverse possession for the relevant limitation period.
12 Dec 2025

LAW WAI FONG v. LUCKY PROFIT CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2084
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4940/2019

On the balance of probabilities the court found HK and CKC ceased paying rent from early 1989 and CKC had adequate factual possession and animus possidendi (at the latest by HK's death in 2000) such that successive occupation exceeded the relevant limitation periods; the registered owner's right to recover was statute-barred under the Limitation Ordinance and CKC acquired possessory title; LWF lacked the requisite animus for the statutory period and her claim failed.
12 Dec 2025

CHEUNG KWAI CHUN v. GLENN FOK, Executor of the Estate of FOK WAI HON also known as RESSEL FOK, Deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2084
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4215/2017

On the facts the court found that the family (HK then CKC) and successors (including licensees) occupied the Lots continuously and without payment of rent from 1989 and that CKC acquired animus possidendi by at least 2000; the registered owners’ right to recover the Lots is statute-barred under s7(2) and their title extinguished under s17 of the Limitation Ordinance; accordingly Cheung Kwai Chun has acquired a possessory title and Law Wai Fong’s adverse possession claim is dismissed.
2 Dec 2025

TSUI LOK HEI v. CHAN SUET YAN, the person appointed to represent the estate of PANG HO TONG, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2011
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6227/2019

Plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession because his factual evidence was inconsistent, unreliable and lacked objective corroboration; the acts and documents relied upon did not establish the requisite degree of exclusive physical control or animus possidendi for the statutory period; registered owners therefore retain entitlement to possession; defendants entitled to nominal damages and costs as ordered.
2 Dec 2025

LEI SHING HONG CREDIT LTD v. SAN TONG LEE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2525/2013

The adverse possession counterclaim was dismissed because (1) the pleadings were deficient and failed to plead the material facts necessary to establish animus possidendi; (2) the evidence failed to prove exclusive possession or the requisite intention — key witnesses were found unreliable and admissions showed most defendants lacked the requisite intention; (3) physical acts and enclosure before 1983 were insufficient to prove dispossession of the paper owner; accordingly LSH is entitled to vacant possession and Ds’ damages counterclaim is dismissed.
2 Dec 2025

SAN TONG LEE CO LTD v. 張達發 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1081/2012

Defendants' adverse possession claim failed because their pleadings were ambiguous and deficient as to the material facts necessary to establish animus possidendi and exclusive possession, and the evidence was not compelling or corroborative (key witnesses found unreliable or to have made inconsistent/untrue statements); expert evidence showed only activity not exclusion; consequently no possessory title arose and counterclaims (including damages) were dismissed.