Choi Wai Kwong v. Choi Wai Keung

On 31 August 2026, District Judge Harold Leong handed down judgment in three consolidated actions between two brothers, Choi Wai Kwong (plaintiff) and Choi Wai Keung (defendant), finding for the plaintiff across the board. Mr Albert Yau, instructed by Messrs ZM Lawyers, acted for the successful plaintiff; Ms Virginia Y T Leung of Pauline Wong & Co. appeared for the defendant.

The dispute traces back to a 1998 Estate Division Agreement following the father's intestate death in 1995. The plaintiff inherited the Remaining Portion of Section A of Lot 527 ("527ARP"), while the defendant inherited Subsection 1 of Section A of Lot 527 ("527A1"). In 2017, the plaintiff subdivided 527ARP into a Garden and a Road, then executed two Assignments transferring the Garden to the defendant for HK$270,000 and a half-share of the Road for HK$55,000. The defendant never paid either sum. The plaintiff sued in DCCJ 6076/2019 for restoration of the Disputed Lands; DCCJ 4763/2023 concerned obstruction of an access path; DCCJ 2168/2024 arose from the defendant's non-compliance with an interlocutory injunction already granted in 4763.

The defendant's defence rested on an alleged "common mistake" in the original family agreement: that the family always intended him to inherit the Garden as well as 527A1. He further claimed the Assignments were merely rectification of that mistake, with no consideration payable.

The Court held that:

(1) The defendant's "common mistake" case failed on the objective test. A reasonable observer, viewing the contemporaneous Lot Plan (dated the same day as the EDA) and the clear lot descriptions in the EDA, DFA 98 and Amended DFA, would not find any ambiguity in what each brother inherited (§§100-113).

(2) The defendant's conduct after allegedly discovering the "mistake" in 2016/2017 was inconsistent with rectification: he offered to purchase the Disputed Lands, executed Assignments acknowledging consideration, and signed receipts in Chinese acknowledging payment (§§114-116).

(3) The defendant's evidence was not credible. His account of the bollard shifted three times in cross-examination (§§126-131), and his narrative of "oral admissions" by the plaintiff was raised for the first time at trial without any pleading support (§§79-83).

(4) The defendant's adverse possession claim failed for want of evidence of exclusive possession (§§120-124).

The Court declared the two Assignments null and void, ordered the defendant to transfer the Garden and half-share of the Road back to the plaintiff, granted injunctions over the Path and Road, dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, and awarded HK$41,400 in damages for loss of rental income (20% of the pleaded figure), with liberty to apply on other heads.

Why it matters

When a rectification claim is met with subsequent conduct that affirms the impugned transaction, that conduct will be deployed against the claimant. A defendant who signs receipts acknowledging consideration he never paid, then pleads there was no consideration, faces an uphill credibility battle. The judgment also illustrates how vague clauses about access roads and boundary walls in old family agreements will not, without survey evidence, displace clear lot descriptions in the operative deeds.