Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The District Court dismissed a personal injuries claim arising from an alleged mahjong parlour incident, finding the plaintiff lacked credibility and liability was not proved.
The District Court dismissed an investor’s claim against a precious metals platform, finding no authority for the agents’ conduct, no implied terms or fiduciary duties, and no Quincecare breach.
The District Court dismissed the 4th Defendant’s application for leave to appeal, upheld the costs order, and confirmed a Sanderson order against the 2nd Defendant.
The Court of First Instance dismissed a negligent misstatement claim arising from a failed RMB remittance for a CIES investment, and rejected vicarious liability.
District Court personal injuries action arising from a workplace assault. The court found the plaintiff and the assailant were employed by the 2nd defendant and held it vicariously liable.
The Court refused leave because the defendant failed to show any error of law or a plainly wrong factual finding by the trial judge; the trial judge's credibility and causation determinations were supported by the medical records, expert reports and the totality of evidence, and the defendant's arguments merely rehashed evidence without demonstrating a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
Source excerpt
District Court assessment of damages for injuries from a foot steam treatment, with 20% apportioned to pre-existing diabetes and a total award of HK$190,000.
District Court personal injuries judgment arising from a forklift accident at a recycling workshop, addressing occupiers’ liability, negligence, contributory negligence, damages, and indemnity.
District Court appeal over whether contributory negligence could be raised after default judgment on liability in a personal injuries action; the defendants’ late evidence was refused.
Defamation trial over workplace emails failed after the court found qualified privilege applied and was not defeated by malice; the employer was not liable on the facts.
Explore more
