Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary possession

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2024

THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE SISTERS OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY v. 曹琳 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2233/2020

The application to vary the Order Nisi was dismissed because D1's counter-offer was not a sanctioned offer, was vague and did not address costs, Legal Aid status alone does not justify departing from Order 62 r 5(1)(d), and having dismissed D1's counterclaim the original apportionment (P to pay 80% of costs) was fair and appropriate; therefore no variation of the Order Nisi was warranted.
12 Sept 2024

THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE SISTERS OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY v. 曹琳 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2363
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2233/2020

The 2011 Agreement, construed contextually against the factual matrix, created a contractual licence in favour of D1 permitting D1, her son and grandchildren to occupy House 410 for their respective lives on condition of keeping the premises in good repair and paying utilities; equity enforces that licence (and proprietary estoppel is established on the facts), so P is not entitled to the vacant possession it sought from D1 in these proceedings (subject to the licence not binding the Government landlord).
5 Mar 2024

CORNHILL ENTERPRISES LTD 對詹士平及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 351
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3246/2021

The court granted a one‑day extension of time but refused to admit the late affidavit because it failed the Ladd v Marshall criteria and amounted to evidence that could have been obtained earlier; the defendant showed no real prospect of success on the merits because he had no title, failed to establish when occupation began and thus could not prove adverse possession for the requisite period; accordingly the appeal against the hearing officer's order was dismissed and the hearing officer's order was upheld with costs to the plaintiff.
8 Jun 2023

THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE SISTERS OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY v. 曹琳 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1586
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2233/2020

The court refused leave because the proposed expert evidence was unnecessary and unlikely to assist: the plaintiff could obtain medical information without formal leave; there was no realistic prospect of a useful 'baseline' expert could provide; permitting such expert evidence risked usurping the court's role in assessing credibility; no draft expert report was produced to show necessity; and D1's stance removed the principal risk of an adverse inference.
13 Nov 2020

PROSPEROUS WORLD LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAI FUNG SHAN

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1033
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3931/2019

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the Structure and the plot of land it stands on because the plaintiff established a superior possessory title under the doctrine of relativity of titles; the hawker licence did not confer proprietary rights to the defendant; the defendant raised no triable issue of identification or ownership of the Structure; and the Master erred in requiring a perfect or absolute title for relief under O.113.
13 Jun 2012

LAW SIU LEUNG v. THE OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAW SIU LEUNG v. THE OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3093/2011

The 2nd Defendant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on appeal because the estoppel defence lacked the necessary elements (clear promise, reliance and detriment), was inconsistent with his conduct and contractual history (including vacating the property and terminating agreements), and thus raised no bona fide triable issue; consequently leave to appeal and a stay of execution were refused and costs nisi awarded to the plaintiff.
3 Apr 2008

TANG MAN KIT AND FOO TAK CHING suing as MANAGERS OF WAH YAN MO FAN HEUNG v. YAULEY TIMBER CO LTD

Citation

TANG MAN KIT AND FOO TAK CHING suing as MANAGERS OF WAH YAN MO FAN HEUNG v. YAULEY TIMBER CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP589/2007

Taken together the direct inspection evidence and the defendant's own surveyor's plan demonstrating no clear demarcation and structures spanning both the Land and STT YL358, together with the common ownership link to the prior occupier, made the defendant's denial of occupation unbelievable; the defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue under Order 113 and the summary order for possession therefore stands.
30 Nov 1994

SILVER FLASH LIMITED v. PERSONS UNKNOWN

Citation

SILVER FLASH LIMITED v. PERSONS UNKNOWN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1834/1993

Discretion to grant leave was exercised in favour of the applicant because she demonstrated long uninterrupted occupation since 1936 unchallenged on affidavit by the plaintiff, the plaintiff initiated proceedings late in the limitation period, the applicant acted with diligence once the Court of Appeal decided Fung Mei Ling, and the plaintiff showed no real prejudice because execution remained stayed; accordingly leave to appeal out of time was justified.