Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal against findings of fact

Legal area

Court

31 May 2024

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2860/2018

The Defendant failed to demonstrate strong or arguable grounds of appeal of law; the challenges are principally factual or discretionary and do not meet the high appellate thresholds; there is insufficient evidence that the Plaintiff will transfer funds out of jurisdiction to render the appeal nugatory; accordingly there is no basis to stay execution and the summons is dismissed, with discrete handling of garnishee applications (HSBC discharged, Henik to proceed).
21 Feb 2014

LAM CHING SHEUNG v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TAM SHUI, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM CHING SHEUNG v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TAM SHUI, DECEASED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/2013

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's factual findings as not plainly wrong, rejected the new substantive defences raised for the first time on appeal, found no basis to disturb the judge's exercise of discretion on costs, dismissed all three appeals, and upheld the trial judgment and indemnity costs orders.
23 Aug 2013

SHERMA PHADINDRA v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHERMA PHADINDRA v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV272/2012

The court found the plaintiff to be impecunious and, although the appeal could go either way, the merits were not so strong as to displace the normal rule; accordingly, in the exercise of its discretion and having regard to a realistic assessment of likely taxable costs, the court ordered security for costs of $200,000 and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the application.
25 Jul 2012

CHAN SZE YUEN v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN SZE YUEN v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2011

The appeal is dismissed because on the accepted evidence the applicant was recruited/engaged in Hong Kong within the meaning of s.30B(5) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance; s.30B(5) does not import the s.5 Cap.78 formalities; the trial judge did not improperly reverse the burden and his factual and credibility findings were not plainly wrong.
29 Mar 2011

THE YIEN YIEH COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. HUNG OI WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

THE YIEN YIEH COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. HUNG OI WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV260/2009

The trial judge's findings that the mortgagor's evidence was unreliable, that undue influence was not established, and that the bank (and its solicitors) had taken reasonable steps to ensure she understood the mortgage were not plainly wrong; the appeal is dismissed and the lower court judgment ordering delivery of vacant possession is affirmed; costs awarded on an indemnity basis.
12 May 2009

HKSAR v. HIN LIN YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. HIN LIN YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA574/2008

The court held that the common law defence is inapplicable to safety legislation so the offences of selling drugs unfit for use were absolute and the elements of those offences were proved; the 1st Appellant failed to prove the statutory due diligence defence as to possession of an unregistered pharmaceutical product; accordingly convictions were upheld, but sentences were reduced because the trial findings of deliberate adulteration could not be supported and mitigation (including publicity and lack of proven motive or serious harm) warranted lower fines.
14 Oct 2008

ALDO TRADING LTD v. PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

ALDO TRADING LTD v. PARTNER DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV30/2008

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's finding that Lee contracted with Partner was supported by the totality of evidence and credibility findings (Fairview consultancy arrangements, drawings referring to Lee, perception of Mr Sit at a meeting, payments by Lee's cheques and correspondence to Lee); invoices naming Aldo did not outweigh that evidence and did not warrant appellate interference.
17 Sept 2008

HAU WAI CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. ALL PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO.174 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO.95 AND ANOTHER

Citation

HAU WAI CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. ALL PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO.174 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO.95 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV41/2007

The trial judge was entitled to find on credibility and surrounding evidence that the Lot was leased to Mr Tsang Lim until 1995, there was no consistent farming or adverse possession thereafter, and the appellant failed to establish the Ladd v Marshall criteria for fresh evidence; therefore the appeal fails and the possession order is upheld.
24 Apr 2008

WONG MAN TAT v. CHAN YUEN MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG MAN TAT v. CHAN YUEN MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV347/2007

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's primary finding that leakage from the defendants' #1801 shower stall caused seepage in the claimant's #1802 based on spray tests, photographs and expert surveyor evidence and the absence of any credible alternative cause; the appeal on liability was dismissed. However the judge's order to assess damages was set aside because the plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence of diminution in value or valuation evidence at trial and there had been no split trial authorizing later assessment of damages. Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent at…
6 Jul 2005

HKSAR v. HAN CHIN CHOU

Citation

HKSAR v. HAN CHIN CHOU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA425/2005

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's factual findings—endorsed by corroborating police evidence—were not shown to be vitiated by error; given the appellant's breach of probation for similar conduct, the 6‑month custodial sentence was appropriate; welfare concerns did not justify altering the sentence but warranted a Social Services Report on the child.