Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prescriptive easement

Legal area

Court

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.
26 Jun 2020

ASIAN WELL TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. LEE YEE MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 521
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV595/2018

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the questions advanced did not meet the Court of Final Appeal threshold of great and general public importance or were academic or fact-specific matters properly determined by the trial tribunal; therefore leave was refused and costs awarded to the defendants.
5 Jun 2020

KING POLICY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WAN KIN SHING

Citation

[2020] HKCA 428
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV107/2018

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings rejecting the existence of the 2006 and 2007 agreements and any estoppel arising from the March 2015 encounters, held that prescriptive easement was not distinctly pleaded and therefore could not be relied on, and concluded there was no basis to disturb the judgment below; appeal dismissed.
23 Sept 2008

WONG CHUNG MING DEVELOPMENT FUND CO LTD v. PROFIT SURPLUS LTD

Citation

WONG CHUNG MING DEVELOPMENT FUND CO LTD v. PROFIT SURPLUS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA335/2008

Court concluded plaintiff demonstrated a high likelihood of success on appeal because the learned judge erred in factoring speculative rerouting and related considerations into the adequacy of damages and balance of convenience; accordingly an interim stay of execution of the interlocutory injunction was granted pending determination of the appeal, subject to plaintiff's undertaking to expedite the appeal and costs directions.
25 Aug 2008

SUN HONEST DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS

Citation

SUN HONEST DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV300/2007

The Court dismissed the appeals: (1) section 16(1)(h) was lawfully applied because traffic dangers at the Tai Hang Road junction were properly within the scope of the subsection where those dangers are sufficiently proximate to the proposed access and would be exacerbated by the scale of the redevelopments; (2) the Building Authority was not obliged to follow the earlier No.6 decision because that decision was a mistake and the scale and consequences of the present proposals materially differ; and (3) a right of way by prescription (lost modern grant) can be established between leaseholders i…
20 Nov 2007

TSAN LUK YUK YIN v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

TSAN LUK YUK YIN v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR3/2005

On the balance of probabilities the plans and photographs show long, open, continuous public and neighbour use of the footpath since ca.1905 such that use was 'apparently as of right'; the dominant tenements are reasonably identified as neighbouring lots (eg Lots 290-292) and the servient owner had actual or constructive knowledge and acquiesced; therefore a prescriptive public right of way existed as at the date of resumption.
18 Apr 2007

YAU YUK MING v. CHAN YUK LIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

YAU YUK MING v. CHAN YUK LIN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4900/2006

Summary judgment and a prohibitory injunction were granted for the Plaintiff because the Defendants failed to raise any triable issue or arguable defence: (1) no way of necessity could be implied in favour of Lot 903 over the Plaintiff's land because the Old Route existed at the time of the relevant grant and the Present Route would require implying a way over land of a stranger rather than over Government land (the grantor); (2) there was insufficient evidence of an intention to dedicate the Plaintiff's property as a public right of way and the user shown was consistent with licence/permissi…
3 Nov 2003

KONG SIK YAU AND OTHERS v. WONG CHAU MING AND OTHERS

Citation

KONG SIK YAU AND OTHERS v. WONG CHAU MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4363/1997

The Court held there was abundant evidence of long, open vehicular use of the Disputed Way, the owners of Lot 364A acquiesced (fence and wall set back) and Government consent to dedication could be inferred from official use and treatment; accordingly the Disputed Way was publicly dedicated for pedestrian and vehicular passage and the Plaintiffs' claims succeeded; alternatively, particular plaintiffs would have acquired prescriptive easements by prescription.
3 Nov 2003

KONG SAU CHING v. KONG PAK YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

KONG SAU CHING v. KONG PAK YAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13429/1997

On the evidence (aerial photographs, witness testimony, lack of interruption and accommodation of the route by fences/walls and Government awareness), the court inferred a public dedication of the Disputed Way for pedestrian and vehicular use with Government consent; alternatively, plaintiffs (or specified plaintiffs) had acquired prescriptive easements by long user (lost modern grant and under the Prescription Act as preserved by constitutional protections). Consequentially, defendants' attempts to obstruct vehicular access were restrained and trespass claims against Trade Advisers and Wong…
16 Jun 1989

PANG KWAN LUNG AND ANOTHER v. MA CHOI HOP AND OTHERS

Citation

PANG KWAN LUNG AND ANOTHER v. MA CHOI HOP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2091/1989

On the interlocutory application the court found the plaintiffs raised arguable grounds on multiple theories (prescription, presumed dedication, village custom, proprietary estoppel) and therefore there was a serious question to be tried; on balance of convenience the existing interim injunction should be continued pending trial provided the plaintiffs give the usual cross-undertaking in damages.