Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of hearsay

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

KO TSZ FUNG 對 HIN TAT ENGINEERING LTD及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2171
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3046/2020

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that any glass fell from the rooftop balustrade or that the first defendant's installation/works caused the accident; contemporaneous documents and witnesses supported defendants' account that first defendant had completed work earlier and was not in control; second defendant had adequate safety systems and the plaintiff voluntarily removed his safety harness and jumped, that act being the sole proximate cause. Accordingly, defendants not liable; if liability were assumed, plaintiff was 50% contributor to his own injury; claim dismisse…
2 Jan 2025

晏江虎對實德貴金屬有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2121
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1768/2020

The plaintiff failed to prove that the 5th–8th representations were false or that the 3rd defendant made them negligently or fraudulently; the Misrepresentation Ordinance s3(1) does not assist because there was no contract between plaintiff and 3rd defendant; evidence was insufficient (absence of complete trading records, market data and expert evidence); claim dismissed as against the 3rd defendant and costs awarded to him.
18 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴劉澍財

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1050
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA480/2023

P1 and P2 being statutory certificates under s9 were admissible and unrebutted; s6A precluded a further 3‑point reduction because appellant had already obtained such a reduction within two years; therefore the appellant had 16 demerit points within the relevant period and the conviction and the 6‑month disqualification under s8(3)(b) were correctly entered and must be upheld.
31 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. MINHAJAUL

Citation

[2021] HKCA 2019
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC139/2017

Prosecution did not act improperly in declining to call Hoque; the s65B statement was introduced by agreement and as a defence tactical tool; defence counsel elected not to require the maker’s attendance or cross-examine; any limited misdirection concerning the s65B statement did not occasion a miscarriage of justice and the verdict is safe, so the appeal is dismissed (conviction and sentence affirmed).
16 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. LEUNG YUK WING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1933
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC139/2021

Bail pending appeal granted because the applicant's first ground — that the absence of the employer's principal from the witness box may have led the judge to rely on inadmissible or insufficient hearsay and unsupported findings about her knowledge — made the appeal reasonably arguable and afforded a real chance of success; the exceptional test for bail on the merit ground was therefore satisfied in respect of that point.
19 Nov 2021

TANG WANG KEI KEITH v. TANG CHUN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1448
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1673/2017

The court found on the evidence that the manager (TTY) had been missing since October 2014 and therefore D1 and D2 satisfied Order 15 r13(1)(b) and (2)(b); the court appointed D1 and D2 to represent the 6th defendant to defend the action, rejected the plaintiff's attempt to obtain default judgment as service was defective and entered against the plaintiff costs orders and taxation directions; the late affirmation of Madam Lau was admitted de bene esse but its evidence was rejected for lack of credibility and objective support.
18 Nov 2021

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP932/2020

The court granted the defendant leave under s48 EO to call and cross-examine Ms Yau and ordered the plaintiff to make arrangements to secure her attendance, but refused to exclude the Yau Affirmation if Ms Yau does not attend; the affirmation remains admissible as hearsay and its weight is for the trial judge under s49 EO.
13 Aug 2020

LKYS v. CCW

Citation

[2020] HKFC 162
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12075/2017

On paper disposal the court found the petitioner established reasonable needs after excluding certain unsubstantiated/increased items and disallowed inadmissible evidence; drew adverse inferences and robust assumptions that the respondent's sole-proprietor company had understated income and therefore had capacity to pay; accordingly the court awarded MPS HK$8,600 per month to the petitioner, interim maintenance HK$45,800 per month for the children and litigation funding HK$10,000 per month, all backdated to 1 May 2020, and ordered costs nisi in favour of the petitioner to be assessed summaril…
18 Oct 2019

LEE KWOK TUNG ALBERT v. CHIYU BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1885/2017

Leave to file the two supplemental witness statements was refused except that the plaintiff may state the facts in paragraph 22(3) of his draft statement, because the majority of the proposed content was irrelevant or unnecessary to the pleaded issues and should, if necessary, be given by the wife herself; appeal allowed with costs to the defendant.
23 Nov 2017

李錦文對譚芳及另二人

Citation

李錦文對譚芳及另二人
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP26/2017

The applicant failed to show any error of law or a plainly arguable error of fact; most issues were factual determinations rightly made by the trial judge and there was no realistic prospect of success on appeal. Accordingly leave to appeal and a stay of execution are refused and the applicant must pay respondents' costs.