Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate review of credibility

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2020

WONG LEI AH v. LEE JIM WING

Citation

[2020] HKCA 963
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV281/2017

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's credibility findings and primary fact determinations were supported by objective documentary evidence and reasonable inferences; the plaintiff failed to prove the requisite animus possidendi for the required period and her payments and renovations were attributable to occupation rather than an intention to possess to the exclusion of the true owner, so the order for vacant possession and mesne profits stands.
14 May 2020

香港特別行政區訴曾中敏及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 496
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA316/2019

The appellants failed to discharge the evidential burden under s.26AAB Cap.362 because objectively reasonable steps to verify authenticity (including simple email/Facebook enquiry to the rights‑holder) were available and not taken; the statutory defences in the Ordinance govern and displace an inconsistent common law defence in the circumstances; trial credibility findings were entitled to deference; convictions and fines were therefore upheld.
9 Jan 2020

香港特別行政區訴劉嘉駿

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 104
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA367/2019

The trial judge properly admitted the KMB Octopus printout P12 under s22A given PW4's familiarity with the system and the objective consistency of the record with eyewitness evidence; the cumulative probative weight of P12, the contemporaneous photo, and the seized clothing/shoes/glasses permitted the sole reasonable inference of identity beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge's credibility determinations were entitled to deference and did not warrant appellate interference, so conviction is safe.
3 Oct 2019

香港特別行政區訴王長賢及二人

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1103
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC274/2018

The court refused permission to appeal because the trial judge properly exercised her discretion: ID898 permitted alternative identification methods and reflected suspects' choices; there was no reliable evidence of prior photo exposure; credibility findings were within the trial judge's province given her advantage of seeing witnesses; procedural irregularities did not render the photo‑identifications manifestly unfair or render convictions unsafe.
23 Nov 2015

LO SAM SHING v. LI FONG

Citation

LO SAM SHING v. LI FONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2014

The trial judge's factual findings that the defendant's factual allegations were not proven and that the defendant acted with malice were not plainly wrong; therefore defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege failed and the trial awards of HK$200,000 general and HK$100,000 aggravated damages stand, but the costs order is varied to District Court scale with certificate for two counsel on appeal.
30 Aug 2012

香港特別行政區訴趙敏茹

Citation

香港特別行政區訴趙敏茹
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA311/2012

The magistrate's management of the trial and credibility assessments were proper; the appellant voluntarily chose not to give evidence and cannot rely at appeal on untested explanations; the prosecution witnesses were credible and the conviction is safe. The sentence was set by reference to established precedent (Cheung Mee Kiu), with an appropriate reduction for lack of prior convictions, and is not excessive.
28 May 2012

GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP397/2012

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the applicant was not forthcoming and appeared to use the application to delay/enjoin enforcement rather than to pursue a bona fide appeal, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; indemnity costs were awarded against the applicant for unreasonable conduct.
24 Nov 2009

HKSAR v. CHEN, RAYMOND

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEN, RAYMOND
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA606/2009

The magistrate's enquiry was a proper attempt to elicit potentially exculpatory evidence for an unrepresented defendant, did not amount to a finding of accidental fact nor a reversal of the burden of proof, and the transcript together with independent witness evidence supported the magistrate's credibility findings and the guilty verdict, so the appeal is dismissed.
11 Dec 2007

HKSAR v. CHAN LEUNG YIU, HENRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN LEUNG YIU, HENRY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA394/2007

A1: Flourish was the agent of Timegress by conduct on 18 April and owed a duty to disclose a valid higher offer; A1 deliberately and dishonestly concealed Cerie’s higher offer, satisfying the offence under s16A, so conviction is safe. A2: There was insufficient evidence that he was aware that Cerie’s offer remained valid on 18 April; cannot draw irresistible inference of his knowledge or participation, so his conviction is unsafe and is quashed. Sentencing: A1’s custodial sentence of seven months was not manifestly excessive but on exceptional personal circumstances the sentence is suspended…
23 May 2005

HKSAR v. LUK CHIU KI

Citation

HKSAR v. LUK CHIU KI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC15/2005

The Court dismissed the application for leave because on a fair reading of the record there was no arguable basis to show the magistrate misunderstood the evidence or erred in assessing credibility, and therefore no basis to permit an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.