Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statute of limitations (limitation ordinance cap.347)

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2025

高宏鳴對陳樹容及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 768
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV241/2024

The application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the first Ladd v Marshall requirement of showing he exercised reasonable diligence to obtain the documents before the original hearing (the documents were in his possession or obtainable), and the proposed evidence was not material to the narrow limitation question on appeal; accordingly the summonses to file those documents were dismissed and costs awarded to the second defendant (HKD 93,791).
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.
15 Dec 2017

蔡思明對蔡錦裳

Citation

蔡思明對蔡錦裳
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV210/2016

The Court of Appeal held the amended statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action in six pleaded categories, many of the pleaded causes were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and relevant causes were statute-barred under the Limitation Ordinance; striking out was therefore justified under Order 18 r.19 and the court's inherent jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed and the strike-out orders and costs direction were affirmed.
7 Feb 2003

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HON KAM WING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HON KAM WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3377/2000

The court held that a constructive trust arising from bribes as per Reid is a real/institutional trust arising on receipt of the bribe, so the Government was equitable owner from receipt and section 20(1) of the Limitation Ordinance applies; consequently the Government's claims to recover the trust property or its proceeds are not time-barred.

Hong Kong Case Law

高宏鳴 對 陳樹容及另一人

王議瑩 對 葉耀錦及另一人

蔡思明 對 蔡錦裳

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HON KAM WING AND OTHERS

高宏鳴對陳樹容及另一人

王議瑩對葉耀錦及另一人

蔡思明對蔡錦裳