In Promise Fine Investments Ltd & Others v. Poon Chuan & Others (LDCS 32000/2018)1, the applicants applied to obtain an order for the compulsory sale of Nos. 244-256 Hai Tan Street in Sham Shui Po. In late 2020, the applicants successfully bid for the site at the price of HK$576 million at a public auction.

The significance of this case is that it is the first time that the Lands Tribunal accepted the inclusion of undivided shares acquired through adverse possession in counting the requisite threshold of undivided shares for making compulsory sale under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (Cap. 545) (the "Ordinance").

Requisite Threshold: 90% or 80%

Under the Ordinance, only the person or persons who "owns" or "own" not less than 90% (or 80% in certain situations) of the undivided shares in a lot may apply for order for compulsory sale.

Before Promise Fine, it was uncertain as to whether undivided shares from a squatter who has obtained possessory title (by way of adverse possession) may also be included in calculating such requisite threshold.

Facts and Principles Established

In Promise Fine, the squatter (the "Squatter") of a residential unit (the "Unit") in the target building obtained an Order from the Court of First Instance against the registered owner (the "Paper Owner") of the Unit. According to the Order,

  • the Squatter successfully established adverse possession against the Paper Owner;
  • therefore, the Paper Owner's title was extinguished by the Squatter; and
  • the Squatter should be registered in the Land Registry as the "registered owner" of the Unit.

Thereafter, the Squatter assigned her possessory title to the Unit to the majority owners of the target building.

It was necessary for the majority owners to include the undivided shares acquired from the Squatter (that is, the undivided shares representing possessory title to the Unit) to reach the requisite threshold (i.e., 80% of the undivided shares in this case) to apply for compulsory sale.

The Tribunal accepted the majority owners' inclusion of the undivided shares acquired from the Squatter to reach the requisite 80% threshold. Further, when determining whether the applicants have taken reasonable steps to acquire all undivided shares of the target lot, the Tribunal agreed that it is NOT necessary for the majority owners to negotiate with the Paper Owner to purchase anything.

Eventually, the Tribunal granted an order for sale with respect to all the undivided shares of the target lot (that is, including the legal estate and interest, if any, owned by the Paper Owner) by way of public auction.2


We welcome this first compulsory sale application in which the Tribunal clarifies a previously untested area of law in the field of compulsory land sale. It provides some degree of certainty to potential compulsory sale applicants that acquisition of undivided shares representing possessory title to particular units could be counted towards meeting the requisite ownership threshold under the Ordinance.


1 Copy of the Judgment can be obtained here:

2 See paragraph 70(2) of the Judgment.

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe - Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.