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

On 14 October 2026, the Court of Final Appeal handed down judgment in Ho Kong, The Sole Executor of the Estate of Fong Mi Yee Deceased v Director of Lands [2026] HKCFA 35, dismissing the Director's appeal and confirming that the holder of an absolute possessory title qualifies as an "owner" eligible for the Home Purchase Allowance (HPA) under the Government's resumption compensation policy. Mr Adrian Lai and Mr Han Sheng Lim, instructed by Chak & Associates LLP, acted for the successful respondent.

The dispute concerned a flat in To Kwa Wan resumed under the Lands Resumption Ordinance (Cap. 124). Madam Fong had occupied the flat for decades and, shortly before her death in 2016, commenced adverse possession proceedings against the registered owner. Her son-in-law, Mr Ho Kong, continued the action as executor of her estate and obtained a District Court judgment in November 2020 declaring that Madam Fong had acquired absolute possessory title by 1 March 2016. The judgment was registered in the Land Registry. When the flat was resumed in May 2021, the Director paid statutory compensation of HK$5,434,000 but refused HPA, relying on Tang Lai v Director of Lands [2021] 3 HKLRD 44, where Chow J held that a possessory title holder is not an "owner-occupier" for HPA purposes.

The respondent challenged that refusal before the Home Purchase Allowance Appeals Committee, then by judicial review to the Court of First Instance (Coleman J) and on appeal to the Court of Appeal. Both courts below rejected Tang Lai and held the respondent entitled to HPA. The Director appealed to the CFA on a certified question of great general and public importance.

The Court held that: (1) the Guidelines setting out the HPA policy are expressly stated to be "not a legal document" and must be construed with a "broader and wholly untechnical approach" (per Lord Steyn in In re McFarland [2004] 1 WLR 1289), not with the technical parsing urged by the Director (§36); (2) the purpose of the HPA, drawn from the 1996 LegCo Paper, is to prevent displaced owner-occupiers from being forced out of home ownership, and nothing in that purpose excludes possessory title holders who have been paid statutory compensation (§38–§41); (3) the requirement in para.12 of the Guidelines to "prove good title" is simply a request for documentary evidence of whatever title the claimant holds, which in a possessory title case can be satisfied by the court judgment declaring that title (§44); and (4) Tang Lai was wrongly decided and should not be followed (§52).

The appeal was unanimously dismissed with costs.

For practitioners advising on resumption claims: where a client has acquired absolute possessory title through adverse possession and the property is resumed, they should now be treated as eligible for HPA alongside statutory compensation. The "title deeds" requirement does not stand in the way. The judgment also flags (obiter, §65–§72) a separate question for cases where the possessory owner has died before resumption: HPA may still be available where immediate family members continue to occupy the flat under para.6.1.2(a) of the Guidelines, but the terms of the will or intestacy will need to be examined.