In Re Li Sing Kui (deceased) [2025] HKCA 898, the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by Li Pak Huen (the Deceased’s son) and Tsang Kwok Cheung (an occupier and invitee of another son of the Deceased) claiming adverse possession over certain apartments in No.15 Robinson Road. The property formed part of the Deceased’s estate which remained unadministered for more than 70 years.
In relation to Li Pak Huen, the Court held that his adverse possession claim failed in limine. He elected not to give evidence at trial, with the result that his affirmations were not admitted and there was no admissible evidence from him to establish the essential elements of adverse possession, namely factual possession and intention to possess. Even considering objective and undisputed material on a fallback basis, the Court agreed with the trial judge that his occupation was with the knowledge and permission of the executors of the estate, including payment by the estate of utilities and outgoings.
In relation to Tsang Kwok Cheung, the Court found that his occupation began as an invitee of Li Pak Wing (the Deceased’s son), who himself occupied with the permission of the executors. After Li Pak Wing’s death in 2016, Tsang remained in occupation with permission. On those facts, his occupation could not amount to adverse possession. The Court further rejected his claims based on constructive trust, estoppel, acquiescence, or alleged promises, holding that Li Pak Wing was not the owner of the property and could not confer any beneficial interest.
The Court of Appeal upheld the order for sale of the property with vacant possession. It confirmed that the Deceased’s will did not require the property to be retained indefinitely for the sons of the deceased, but only provided limited residence rights for certain family members. Given that the estate had remained unadministered for nearly 70 years, further delay was unjust to the beneficiaries, and sale was appropriate to complete the administration.
Costs were awarded against both appellants on an indemnity basis, to reflect the complete lack of merit in the appeals and the serious and unfounded allegations raised against the trial judge.
Read the Judgment here: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=173888&currpage=T
Mr Justin Lam and Ms Phoebe Lee, instructed by CRB, acted for the 9th Defendant.
