Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Prescription

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 9 Jan 2020

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

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 94
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1975/2019

    The interlocutory summonses were dismissed and the short-term injunction discharged because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate serious questions to be tried on their claims (express unregistered grant, lost modern grant, public dedication, proprietary estoppel) and damages were an adequate remedy with defendant able to pay; licensees lacked locus to claim easement by lost modern grant and the express grant pleaded was unregistered and unsupported by evidence, so mandatory interlocutory relief was refused.

  • 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.

  • 29 Mar 2018

    HAU CHO SHING v. HAU CHI WING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 686
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA167/2016

    The defendants' strike-out application in respect of the Easement Claim is dismissed because it is arguable that s16 C&PO permits appurtenant easement rights to pass with an assignment notwithstanding attempts to prevent enjoyment immediately before assignment, disputed factual issues (tenancy, exclusivity, alleged collusion) cannot be resolved on strike-out, and the allegations of frivolousness, abuse and unclean hands are not sufficiently established to defeat the claim; consequently the application to discharge paragraph 2 of the interlocutory injunction also fails on the evidence presente…

  • 15 Sept 2017

    何幹業 對 麥興龍及另二人

    Citation
    何幹業 對 麥興龍及另二人
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP3210/2013

    Defendants failed to prove the necessary elements of adverse possession: their evidence lacked credibility and did not establish single and conclusive factual possession or an unequivocal intention to exclude the registered owner for the requisite period; occupier's use was pursuant to a licence (oral then written) which was validly terminated and therefore the Limitation Ordinance did not extinguish the plaintiff's title; accordingly plaintiff's claim for possession succeeds and defendants' counterclaims for title by adverse possession are dismissed.

  • 19 Aug 2016

    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

    Court held the Defendant's construction of a gate on the Blue Strip constituted substantial interference with the Plaintiff's 1st ROW and was unlawful; the relocated gate on the Green Strip amounted to a derogation from the express "free and uninterrupted" 2nd ROW and had to be demolished; the Extended Area did not enlarge the dominant tenement and Plaintiff retained rights to use the Green Strip to access Lot 181 SA; estoppel claim failed.

  • 2 Apr 2015

    SIT KIM MING v. GROWTH LEADER LTD

    Citation
    SIT KIM MING v. GROWTH LEADER LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1055/2013

    The summons for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide a valid explanation for substantial, inordinate delay in prosecuting the application; although defendant did not adduce evidence of specific prejudice, the disciplinary aspect of the court's discretion and the continued availability of a narrower undertaking from the defendant justified refusal of the injunction and an award of costs to the defendant.