Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference for failure to call witness

Legal area

Court

22 May 2025

滿華樓業主立案法團對王陳靜及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 459
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP141/2024

The court refused leave to appeal because the proposed grounds did not raise a legal issue of general public importance under s29A and there was no real prospect of success: the tribunal's conclusions were open to question given inconsistent records and the failure to call the relevant manager justified an adverse inference; a s22(4) certificate is only prima facie and rebuttable; accordingly the High Court's intervention in the earlier appeal was not shown to be erroneous and the leave application fails.
27 Aug 2024

MAK, RACHEL WING NAM v. CHING KAI CHUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 818
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP194/2023

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds relied on disagreements with the judge's factual findings which were not plainly wrong and therefore the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the proposed new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall criteria (the Guide was obtainable earlier and the expert report could have been procured with reasonable diligence and in any event relied on findings of fact rejected at trial); no other reasons in the interests of justice justified admission; consequentially applications for stay and fresh evidence were dismissed and costs awarded to the…
5 Apr 2024

黃堅華對袁桂馨及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 545
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6050/2018

The court held there was no real prospect of success on appeal because the trial judge's factual findings that the third person was not a party to the lease and that defendants failed to prove authorization or acquiescence were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; the defendants had not pleaded or adduced necessary evidence on authorization/acquiescence and bore the burden on those issues; the lease was unregistered and thus not enforceable against the plaintiff purchaser; the valuation report, while not reflecting unusual lease terms, was properly used to assess occupation rent.…
24 Oct 2023

LAM CHEUK WAI v. HUNG MAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1500
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2447/2019

The court found the applicant was an employee of the respondent because the respondent exercised significant control over work location and procedures, paid wages monthly on a daily-rate basis, provided tools and materials, and the applicant did not assume financial risk or profit; semantic variations in naming the employer did not negate that employment; the accident as described by the applicant occurred in the course of employment and the respondent's contrary A&E record was adequately explained by emergency conditions; adverse inference was drawn from respondent's failure to call the dire…
13 Jan 2022

HO MAN KIT and KONG SAU WAI as the joint and several trustees of the Property of LI BAO TIAN (a bankrupt) v. LO SIU CHU JUDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2016/2017

The court rejected the defendants' alleged arrangement as fabricated, found that the bankrupt (B) funded the money transfers and acquisitions and intended to gift/put assets beyond creditors; accordingly s.49 BO and s.60 CPO applied to the relevant transfers and dispositions and the equitable remedy is to vest the two properties in the trustees and to order repayment of earlier transfers, with interest and costs.
30 Apr 2021

WOO TAK YAN 對 SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA10/2019

Leave to appeal refused because the dispute concerned primary findings of fact and credibility by the tribunal, which were supported by evidence and reasonable; the tribunal did not misapply hearsay principles, had acceptable explanations for absence of particular witnesses/records, and its costs assessment was within lawful bounds.
13 May 2020

KONG HON KUI THOMAS and KONG HON QUAN MARIUS (Administrators of the Estate of Kong So Ngo, Deceased) 對 WU YUK CHUN JUDY 及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCA 306
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV190/2019

The application for leave was dismissed because the issues raised were primarily fact-specific, the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge's factual findings, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any question of law of general or public importance or other reason to justify the Court of Final Appeal's intervention. Costs were ordered against the applicant.
24 May 2018

KO NGA CHUN v. COMPANHIA DE DESENVOL VIMENTO WUI SAN LIMITADA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA277/2012

All primary witnesses were found not credible and the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the pleaded Verbal/Intermediary Agreement; hearsay statements of the deceased key witness were excluded as their admission would severely prejudice defendants; transcript evidence of Fong was excluded; adverse inference drawn from plaintiff's failure to call Tam; on those bases both the original claim and the counterclaim are dismissed.
8 May 2017

LAMYIN BOK BOSCO, A MINOR BY LAM PO YEE, HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND v. DR CHAN YEE SHING also known as DR CHAN YEE SHING ALVIN

Citation

LAMYIN BOK BOSCO, A MINOR BY LAM PO YEE, HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND v. DR CHAN YEE SHING also known as DR CHAN YEE SHING ALVIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI369/2010

Court accepted defendant's liability but made detailed findings on quantum: psychiatric injuries of parents were caused by the original nervous shocks and were compensable; however the severe setback after receipt of the Medical Council letter was held to be objectively irrelevant to the defendant's tort and not recoverable as an aggravation. The Father Care Claim was awarded on the basis of a notional-earnings baseline reduced for part-time earnings ($172,500). The Mother was awarded PSLA and economic heads totalling $935,920; the Father was awarded PSLA and specific heads totalling $293,211…
8 Nov 2016

CHEN BIJUN v. SO YEE CHUN

Citation

CHEN BIJUN v. SO YEE CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI110/2015

On the balance of credibility the court preferred D's evidence over P's, found that P was a subcontractor not an employee of D, drew an adverse inference from P's failure to call a material witness (Ah Pun), and concluded that D was not liable to P in the asserted capacity as employer; accordingly P's claim failed on liability.