The Court of Final Appeal’s recent judgment in 

So Kwai Chung v Wong Wai Ying Anita and ors

 [2025] HKCFA 8 addresses the nature and extent of the liability of a tenant in common (“

”) where the other tenant in common (“

”) is bound by proprietary estoppel to allow a right of way over the land owned in common by D1 and D2.

Ps relied upon assurances from D2, one of the co-owners of an adjacent piece of land (“

”), that they would have vehicular access over Ds’ Land to reach their property (“

”), there being no other means of access from the public road to Ps’ Property. Ps later used Ds’ Land for access for a decade without objection from D1. Subsequently, D1 blocked the access to Ds’ Land. It was found concurrently by the Courts below that D2 was bound by proprietary estoppel to allow a right of way by Ps over Ds’ Land. As for D1, his argument that he could not be bound by the right of way, as he had no knowledge of the events leading to and so was not bound by the estoppel, was rejected.

The CFA unanimously dismissed D1’s appeal. While it was not contended that D1 was directly bound by the proprietary estoppel that arose against D2, the Court clarified that the central issue was whether the right of way granted by D2 went beyond what was reasonable and incidental to D2’s use and enjoyment of the land, and whether it interfered with D1’s possession, use and enjoyment. The Court held that a tenant in common may, by proprietary estoppel, grant rights to a third party over co-owned land, provided such rights do not prejudice the other co-owners’ enjoyment.

In the present case, the right of way was consistent with the only practical use of Ds’ Land, namely to provide access to adjacent properties, including those developed by D1 and D2. The Court noted that both D1 and D2 had allowed similar access for other developments in the vicinity. That being so, use by the Ps of Ds’ Land for vehicular access to Ps’ Property – as with other neighbouring houses – could not be said to go beyond what was reasonable and incidental to D2’s possession and enjoyment of Ds’ Land; nor could it be said that such use was apt to interfere with the possession and use and enjoyment of that land by D1. The Court further held that the right of way should bind not only D1 and D2 but also their successors in title, in order to protect the value of Ps’ property.

 and Sunny Chan, instructed by K C Ho & Fong, appeared for the 1

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Shared Land, Shared Obligations: New Court of Final Appeal Ruling on Proprietary Estoppel, Rights of Way and Tenants in Common

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New