TANG CHOK LAM AND OTHERS v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF TANG YAN HI, DECEASED

HCA 466/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 466 OF 2025

_________________

______________

___________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

___________________________

1.  The Defendant is the registered owner of Lot 584 and the Remaining Portion of Lot 586 both in Demarcation District No 125 (“Properties”). The Defendant became the registered owner in 1916 and would by now be over 100 years old if still alive.

2.  The Properties are located in San Wai, Ha Tsuen, Yuen Long which was formerly a rural area with chicken farms.

3.  In around 2008, the Plaintiffs sought to explore open storage business opportunities in the area. The Properties were then occupied by a farmer. On 6 July 2009, the farmer sold his right to use the Properties to Luen Bong Property Development Limited (“Luen Bong”) at $170,000. Luen Bong was the corporate vehicle of the Plaintiffs who are its equal shareholders. Since then, the Plaintiffs have been in continuous and joint possession of the Properties, which form part of a larger site used by them for an open storage warehouse. Metal hoarding and gates are installed. Access is controlled through a guard booth and limited to the Plaintiffs and their tenants. Over the years, the Plaintiff have paid the utility bills and government rates, and have leased the warehouse to tenants for rent.

4.  In 2025, the Plaintiffs commenced these proceedings for adverse possession of the Properties. The Official Solicitor consented to represent the Defendant for the limited purpose of accepting service. Probate and death searches yield no result. It is likely that the Defendant has passed away by now. Leave was granted by the court for the action to proceed in the absence of any person representing the estate of the Defendant. No notice of intention to defend having been filed by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs by summons dated 7 January 2026 apply for default judgment against the Defendant. The application has been duly advertised on local newspapers.

5.  I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the Plaintiffs have established their claim against the Defendant by demonstrating, since 2009 and for a period of no less than 12 years prior to the commencement of this action: (1) factual possession (which includes possession through their tenants); (2) intention to possess or animus possidendi; and (3) possession that is adverse to the world at large including the Defendant being the paper owner.

6.  I accept the submissions of Mr Benjamin Chong appearing for the Plaintiffs that there can be a single possession exercised by several persons jointly with the common intention that their possession shall be to the exclusion of everyone else including the paper owner, but not between themselves. As between themselves, they are entitled to the use and possession of any part of the land but cannot point to any part as his own to the exclusion of the other: Law Po Lin v Hau Kwai Fat & Ors [2018] HKCFI 1345 at [22]. The single possession contemplated on behalf of several persons jointly may be effected through a legal entity, provided that all joint owners have a “common focal point” in dealing with the land through it: Brown v Faulkner [2003] NICA 5(2) at [34].

7.  I further accept Mr Chong’s submissions that on the evidence, Luen Bong functioned solely as a vehicle through which the Plaintiffs acted collectively, with a common intention to possess the Properties for their joint benefit. It signed the transfer agreement with the farmer for administrative convenience, and it all along acted as an agent through which the Plaintiffs jointly exercised factual possession and animus possidendi.

8.  Whilst the court does not normally grant a declaration without a trial, that is no more than a rule of practice which may be departed from when there is a genuine need for the declaratory relief and justice would not be done if such a relied is denied, provided that the court has, upon careful scrutiny, satisfied itself that the pleaded claim has been proved by the evidence produced. I am satisfied that the present case is one where justice requires the court to grant the declaration sought by the Plaintiffs to enable them to acquire a joint possessory title over the Properties and deal with them as their owner. It serves no utility to require the Plaintiffs to proceed to trial to prove their case in such circumstances.

9.  For the above reasons, at the hearing on 24 June 2026, I entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs as follows:

(1)  There be a declaration that the Defendant’s title to the Properties has been extinguished by virtue of section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347); and

(2)  There be a further declaration that the Plaintiffs have acquired a joint indefeasible possessory title to the Properties.

10.  The coloured sketch plan annexed to the Statement of Claim shall be appended to the sealed Judgment, with Lot 584 shaded in red colour and the Remaining Portion of Lot 586 shaded in green colour for identification.

11.  I made no order as to costs.