Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Successors in title

Legal area

Court

20 May 2025

SO KWAI CHUNG v. WONG WAI YING ANITA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV12/2024

Where a co-owner (D2) is bound by proprietary estoppel to grant a right of way, the other co-owner (D1) is bound by that right if the right does not go beyond what is reasonable and incidental to the grantor's possession and use of the common land and does not interfere with the non-granting co-owner's possession, use and enjoyment; applying that test to the facts, the right of way did not prejudice D1 and therefore D1 could not terminate it; the court will grant declaratory and injunctive relief binding the defendants and their successors as necessary to prevent unconscionable conduct.
13 Sept 2017

KAN WING YEE WENDY v. ROH JULIE KIM

Citation

KAN WING YEE WENDY v. ROH JULIE KIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP352/2017

The vendor's statutory declaration from Yeung together with strong circumstantial pointers (small proportional interest, prolonged inaction by the nominator, successive transfers) rebutted the presumption of resulting trust beyond reasonable doubt; alternatively, any equitable claim arising from the 1979 nomination would in any event have been time-barred against successors in title by operation of the Limitation Ordinance as construed in light of Peconic, so there was no real risk to the purchaser and the vendor has shown good title.
20 Jun 2001

LOK YAU LOI v. TANG CHEONG FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

LOK YAU LOI v. TANG CHEONG FAT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP864/1997

The court found it more probable than not that a licence to the Lok family existed and was affirmed or regranted by the 2nd defendant in the mid-1970s, before the relevant limitation period, and therefore the plaintiff did not have the requisite adverse possession for the statutory period; accordingly the plaintiff's claim failed.
4 Apr 2001

COLLIERS JARDINE MANAGEMENT LTD. v. NATURAL WAY DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

COLLIERS JARDINE MANAGEMENT LTD. v. NATURAL WAY DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1067/2000

The Court held that the Consent Order did not automatically bar the applicant from suing for new breaches of the Deed of Mutual Covenant arising from chimneys erected in 1999/2000 because those works were not shown to conform to the annexed plans or reasonable modifications; the Judge at the Lands Tribunal was wrong to strike out paragraphs 1(a), 2(a) and 2(e); whether the Consent Order covers the complained works and whether the 3rd respondent is entitled to rely on it are factual matters for trial; therefore the striking out is set aside and the matter remitted to the Lands Tribunal for tri…
10 Dec 1997

ROLLING DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. EASE KING LTD. and Another

Citation

ROLLING DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. EASE KING LTD. and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/1997

The guarantor's covenant was held to touch and concern the land and to enure for the benefit of the lessor and any successor in title; clause 8 does not express a clear contrary intention to exclude successors in title, so the assignee could enforce the covenant and the guarantor had no prospect of success; the appeal was dismissed.
23 May 1997

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NINE QUEEN\'S ROAD CENTRAL and Another v. MINKIND DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NINE QUEEN\'S ROAD CENTRAL and Another v. MINKIND DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3979/1996

The naming covenant did not create enforceable obligations against subsequent purchasers who did not expressly assume the obligation or where the covenant did not properly run with the land; the documents did not establish clear privity or an effective mechanism (trust, agency or express annexation) to bind remote assignees, and the pure benefit-and-burden principle could not be invoked to imply such contractual obligations here; accordingly the Plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief and declarations.
7 Oct 1994

BEACON HEIGHTS (MANAGEMENT) LTD. v. LEUNG PING HUNG, ANTONIO AND OTHERS

Citation

BEACON HEIGHTS (MANAGEMENT) LTD. v. LEUNG PING HUNG, ANTONIO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3570/1991

Clause 27 was to be construed as imposing an obligation on the original owner (who signed the Deed) to give a charge and that obligation binds successors in title who take with notice; equity will "treat as done that which ought to be done" so the manager may enforce the charge and register a memorial at the Land Office despite successors not having signed any instrument of charge.
26 Feb 1993

SHAMDASANI, MURLI PESSUMAL v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS

Citation

SHAMDASANI, MURLI PESSUMAL v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV199/1991

No estoppel arose because the respondent made no representation to the appellant; the appellant purchased with actual notice of defects and solicitor warnings; and, in any event, any representation that would permit exclusive use of common parts would have been ultra vires of the owners' corporation and therefore could not give rise to a binding estoppel. Appeal dismissed.
27 Mar 1992

TANG KUN NIN AND ANOTHER v. TANG CHUN CHAK AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG KUN NIN AND ANOTHER v. TANG CHUN CHAK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP761/1991

The mortgage dated 15 January 1917 is incapable of subsistence or otherwise unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance because the limitation periods for enforcing principal, interest and for foreclosure have expired (ss.19(1),(4),(5)); payment into court is not an available remedy in Hong Kong to discharge the incumbrance, although a redemption action remains available because the plaintiffs have continuously remained in possession.