Ho Kong, The Sole Executor of the Estate of Fong Mi Yee Deceased v. Director of Lands and Another

CACV 15/2024, [2026] HKCA 459

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 15 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCLA NO 1135 OF 2022)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By judgment dated 15 December 2025, this court dismissed the Director’s appeal and upheld the decision of Coleman J that the Applicant, as holder of an absolute possessory title in respect of the Flat and its occupier, was the “owner-occupier” of the Flat within the meaning of the Government’s Home Purchase Allowance policy and as such eligible for receiving Home Purchase Allowance as an ex gratia payment pursuant to that policy.

2.The Director now moves the court for an order to grant him leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, both on the ground that a question of great general or public importance is involved which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal and on the “otherwise” ground under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

3.The question said to be of great general or public importance is formulated in the Notice of Motion is follows:

“ Does a mere possessory title holder of a domestic flat resumed under the Lands Resumption Ordinance (Cap. 124) qualify as an ‘owner-occupier’ eligible for ex gratia payment of the ‘Home Purchase Allowance’ under the Government’s guidelines set out in ‘Land Resumption and Compensation in the Urban Area – Guidelines for Owners, Occupiers and Surveyors?”

4.The Applicant takes a neutral stance to the application so far as it is based on the “great general or public importance” ground, but makes a number of comments on the wording of the question put forward. We take into account those comments. The differences between the parties are minor and, in our view, inconsequential.

5.Although the question turns on the construction of a policy, namely the Home Purchase Allowance policy, based on its particular wording, history and purpose, we accept the submissions made on behalf of the Director that it may well have relevance to existing and future claims to Home Purchase Allowance by possessory title holders of resumed property, with significant public funding implications. On that basis, we consider that the question is of sufficient general importance to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal. We would slightly adjust its formulation by, inter alia, adding the word “absolute” to make clear that the possessory title the court is concerned with is one that has become absolute upon the expiry of the limitation period (see §40 of our judgment on the appeal).

6.We give leave to appeal on the basis of the following question:

“ Does the holder of an absolute possessory title in respect of a domestic flat resumed under the Lands Resumption Ordinance (Cap. 124) qualify as an ‘owner’ eligible for ex gratia payment of the ‘Home Purchase Allowance’ under the Government’s policy set out in ‘Land Resumption and Compensation in the Urban Area – Guidelines for Owners, Occupiers and Surveyors’?”

7.Costs are to be in the cause of the appeal.

Mr Adrian Lai & Mr Han Sheng Lim, instructed by M/s Chak &Associates LLP, for the Applicant (Respondent)

Mr Jian Pao SC & Mr John Leung, instructed by Department of Justice, for the 1^st Respondent (Appellant)