Fong Ping Kit v. Tsang Hin Wai, The Administrator of the Estate of Lee Chiu Tai, Deceased and Another

On 28 October 2026, the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP, Cheung and Chow JJA) handed down judgment in Fong Ping Kit v Tsang Hin Wai, Administrator of the Estate of Lee Chiu Tai, Deceased and Another [2026] HKCA 1732, dismissing the 1st Defendant's appeal. Mr Patrick Chong and Mr Terrence Tai of Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum acted for the successful Plaintiff.

The dispute concerned five lots of land in San Tsuen, Pat Heung in the New Territories, originally registered in the name of Mr Tsang Loi Ki since 1910. The Plaintiff, Fong Ping Kit, had occupied portions of the land since 1970 under a rental agreement with the late Madam So Yuen, whom he alleged was the wife of the registered owner. He operated a duck farm and later a pig farm on the land until 2007. The 1st Defendant's mother, Madam Lee, separately obtained a 2007 Order in DCMP 3485/2000 (the "2000 Action") declaring possessory title to the disputed lands based on affirmations asserting continuous family occupation since 1950. The 1st Defendant then used that order to demand HK$20,000 in alleged rent arrears from the Plaintiff, who signed a Consent Summons in DCCJ 1670/2009 (the "2009 Action") and paid the sum without legal advice.

Deputy High Court Judge Kent Yee had set aside both the 2007 Order and the Consent Summons on the ground of fraud, finding that Madam Lee and the 1st Defendant had falsely represented continuous occupation of the lands and that the alleged tenancy was a "sheer fabrication". The 1st Defendant appealed, abandoning his challenge to the fraud finding and instead attacking the Plaintiff's locus standi and the rescission of the Consent Summons.

The Court held that: (1) the Plaintiff had locus standi to challenge the 2007 Order based on his actual possession alone, without needing to prove adverse possession, since possession is a good title against all but those with a better title (§§35-38); (2) the 1st Defendant's locus challenge was raised too late, having not been pleaded in the Re-Amended Defence or included in the Agreed List of Issues, distinguishing East Legend Investment Ltd (§§40-42); and (3) the Consent Summons was properly rescinded as procured by fraud (§§48-53), given that the underlying 2009 Action was based on false representations about the 2007 Order and a fabricated tenancy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to follow the event, assessed summarily on a party-and-party basis. The Court declined to award indemnity costs.

For practitioners: a non-party in actual possession of land has standing to challenge a prior order affecting that land, even before any limitation period has expired. Challenges to standing must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and a consent summons founded on a fraudulently obtained order cannot stand.