Wong Chee Sing (or Wong Che Sing) (黃志成) (By His Next Friend Wong Tak Kwan Lilian) v. Hung Wah (孔华) Trading As Tak Hing Lung Medicine Co. (德兴隆藥業公司)

On 14 October 2026, the Court of Final Appeal handed down judgment in Wong Chee Sing v Hung Wah (FACV 4/2026), dismissing the appellant's appeal and confirming the Court of Appeal's decision that the respondent had acquired title to a Kowloon shop by adverse possession. Mr Edward Chan SC, Mr Andrew Mak and Ms Jamie Pang, instructed by Deacons, acted for the successful respondent.

The dispute concerned the Rear Shop on the ground floor of Nos. 50 and 52 Battery Street, Kowloon, a building held by Wong under a 1968 Government Lease. The Shop had been let to a tenant Liu Shu Ming under a tenancy expiring 24 February 1976, after which no rent was paid. Hung came into occupation in 1992 and has run Tak Hing Lung Medicine Company there ever since, paying nothing to Wong. Wong continued paying rates and government rent and dealt with Building Orders concerning a canopy at the Shop. He sued for possession in 2018. The trial judge held that Hung had neither factual possession nor the requisite animus possidendi, and granted Wong an order for possession. The Court of Appeal (Kwan VP, Cheung and G Lam JJA) reversed, holding that the trial judge had conflated ownership with possession.

The Court of Final Appeal (Cheung CJ, Ribeiro, Fok, Lam PJJ and Keane NPJ) dismissed Wong's appeal. Lam PJ, giving the lead judgment, addressed two questions certified by the Appeal Committee.

Holding

The Court held that: (1) Wong Tak Yue v Kung Kwok Wai (No 2) (1997-98) 1 HKCFAR 55 should be departed from, and the law on animus possidendi should follow J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419; (2) in the absence of deliberate concealment, written acknowledgement, or an implied licence by estoppel, a paper owner's mistaken belief that he is the squatter's landlord, and the squatter's knowledge of that belief, does not negative the squatter's intention to possess (§57).

The Court accepted that Hung had exclusive physical control of the Shop from 1992, that his occupation was without Wong's consent, and that his intention to "lie low" was not inconsistent with the requisite intention to possess (§§46-53). The appeal was dismissed with costs, the Court making an order nisi that Wong pay Hung's costs.

For practitioners advising landowners, the practical implications are these: the 12-year clock under section 7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance runs from the moment a squatter takes ordinary possession without consent, and a squatter's willingness to pay rent if asked, or a paper owner's mistaken belief that a tenancy exists, will not stop time running. Pleas of tenancy, licence (including by estoppel), acknowledgement of title, or fraudulent concealment must be specifically pleaded and proved if a paper owner is to defeat a limitation defence.