Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 龔桂連

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC179/2024

Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 10‑day delay and failed to establish any arguable grounds of appeal or that counsel was incompetent or that the plea was involuntary; the trial judge's factual findings were supported by credible witness and documentary evidence; the sentences imposed were within the correct range and not manifestly excessive — permission to appeal out of time refused and the appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Fraud
• Theft
• Late filing of appeal
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Voluntary plea
• Witness credibility

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 鄧晉良

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC40/2025

The High Court refused leave because the trial judge had adequately considered and analysed the key credibility issues and provided sufficient reasons for accepting PW1's evidence; the applicant's grounds merely re‑hashed points already considered and did not demonstrate any manifest error or incompatibility with the overall evidence warranting appellate intervention.

Source excerpt

• Theft
• Credibility of witnesses
• Sufficiency of reasons
• Appellate review of factual findings

Read case analysis

IDA FARIDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCAL609/2022

The Court of First Instance dismissed Ida Farida’s leave application for judicial review after she sought to withdraw it post-hearing, with no outstanding issues remaining.

• Judicial review
• Leave to apply
• Non-refoulement
• Torture claims
• Withdrawal of application
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 潘靜侃及另一人

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCC209/2020

Under OSCO the court's role at the s8 confiscation stage is limited to assessing the defendant's benefit and not to adjudicating third‑party ownership or beneficial interests; third parties therefore lack standing to intervene as parties at this stage and may pursue claims in enforcement under s17(8) or in civil proceedings.

Source excerpt

• Confiscation
• Third‑party intervention
• Benefit vs realizable property
• Execution vs determination of title
• Osco procedure

Read case analysis

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP71/2025

The Court of First Instance varied a costs order nisi and ordered DBS Bank to pay the defendants’ costs of conversion summonses, the costs summons and a time summons.

• Interlocutory costs
• Conversion of originating summons to writ
• Summary judgment and leave to defend
• Legal mortgage possession
• Breach of confidentiality
• Prevention principle

Read case analysis

劉志立 對 吳國柱

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCSA35/2025

The application for permission to appeal is dismissed because the claimant's challenge was essentially to the tribunal's factual findings and credibility assessments, not a demonstrable legal error; documentary evidence did not establish an arguable legal point and the Edwards v Bairstow standard for upsetting factual findings was not met.

Source excerpt

• Oral agreement enforceability
• Witness credibility
• Appealability under s.28(1)
• New evidence on review
• Costs

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 莫柱榮

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA449/2024

The High Court, conducting a rehearing, accepted the authenticity and sufficient clarity of the CCTV and matching clothing evidence; having applied Turnbull guidance and considered the appellant's complaints about hearing and hair differences, the court concluded the identification was reliable and the evidence proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentence upheld.

Source excerpt

• Identification evidence
• Cctv evidence
• Turnbull directions
• Rehearing standard
• Fitness to plead/hearing assistance

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 黃子偉

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA143/2024

The court refused the applicant's s32 certificate because his complaints were essentially challenges to factual and credibility findings, not questions of law of great and general importance; the High Court correctly identified that the magistrate's rejection of the complainant's evidence was perverse under Li Man Wai, warranted allowing the prosecution's case‑stated appeal and remitting the three charges for rehearing, and those determinations do not constitute the kind of point of law requiring certification to the Court of Final Appeal.

Source excerpt

• Case stated appeal under magistrates ordinance
• Certification to court of final appeal s32
• Perverse finding/manifestly unreasonable standard
• Credibility findings
• Costs orders

Read case analysis

MISDA LENI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCAL444/2022

The court dismissed an application for leave to apply for judicial review, treating the Form 86 as amended to challenge the TCAB decision after a voluntary withdrawal request.

• Leave to apply for judicial review
• Procedural amendment of pleadings
• Withdrawal of application
• Appeal to torture claims appeal board
• Service and filing deadlines
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

SEAN LEONARD v. HONG KONG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI1180/2021

The District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s applications for leave to appeal and for recusal, finding no reasonable prospect of success and no actual or apparent bias.

• Leave to appeal
• Recusal
• Costs order
• Apparent bias
• Withdrawal of action
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis