Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Authenticity of documents

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2026

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 229
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA279/2021

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the grounds advanced lacked reasonable prospects of success: the plaintiff's pleadings did not support the assertion that no binding agreement was pleaded, Indian law and practice were relevant to whether a genuine sale occurred and to causation issues raised by the defendant, the authenticity and weight of disclosed documents are matters for trial, and the necessity and reliability of foreign expert evidence cannot fairly be resolved at this interlocutory stage.
30 Oct 2025

P.B. GROUP LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HANGKAN GROUP LTD AND FEISHANG NON-METAL MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY LTD) v. LITUO ENTERPRISE (HK) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2449/2018

Plaintiff failed to discharge the legal burden to prove the authenticity and provenance of the Disputed Agreements; significant gaps and absence of contemporaneous supporting material, unreliable witness evidence and non‑production of documents justified applying adverse inferences (the Maxim); on balance the court concluded the Disputed Agreements did not originate from the defendant and were forged, therefore the contractual claims were dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.
20 Dec 2024

EVERBOND ENGINEERING LTD v. AER BLOCK BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2130
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3350/2020

The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and documentary picture over the Defendant's contested Written Agreement and oral Truck Rental Agreement, found the trucks were held on trust for the Plaintiff (alternatively a common intention constructive or resulting trust) because Plaintiff paid hire‑purchase instalments and running costs, rejected the Defendant's asserted set‑off, dismissed the counterclaim, and entered judgment for the Plaintiff for HK$1,598,450.60 with interest and costs.
5 Feb 2024

CH v. TTHM

Citation

[2024] HKFC 17
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8214/2011

H failed to discharge the burden of proof that the Disputed Properties were beneficially owned by the alleged beneficiaries or funded by the Alleged Trust; documentary and oral evidence was unreliable or inconsistent, key witnesses (the alleged beneficiaries) were not called and an adverse inference was drawn; accordingly all Disputed Properties are beneficially owned by H and the respondent's section 17 relief is granted in the terms ordered.
31 Mar 2023

HU LAN v. DAVID GOLDEN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 873
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2320/2019

On the balance of probabilities the transfers were a gift from Father effected through the plaintiff rather than a loan: the plaintiff failed to prove the Written Loan Agreement was authentic and reflective of the parties' true intention, the late evidence application was rightly refused, and an adverse inference arose from the plaintiff's failure to call Father; accordingly the claim is dismissed.
23 Jun 2022

RE MIAO ZHENGUO

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6498/2020

Petitioner had taken all reasonable steps to bring the statutory demand to the debtor's attention (personal service, WeChat, SMS, postal service, advertisements); the debtor was ordinarily resident and had a place of residence in Hong Kong within the relevant 3-year period (TKS address, tax filings, HKID, presence); the debtor failed to establish a bona fide dispute about the petitioning debt's foundation; petitioner properly and expressly abandoned security in the petition under s6B(1) BO; accordingly the petition was properly presented and the setting aside application failed.
28 Apr 2022

B.P., SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, DR. POON v. GRAHAM SILVERTHORNE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI660/2017

The court refused to make a separate costs order or to award indemnity costs in respect of the disputed School Planner material, holding that once the documents were withdrawn the issue was one of credibility integrated into the broader trial issues and therefore costs related to it must be dealt with within the general costs order of the action; accordingly the general costs order (costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants with a certificate for two counsel) governs recovery of costs for this issue.
16 Jun 2021

SKY MOTION HOLDINGS LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 875
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV285/2021

The judge erred in granting unconditional leave because he failed to properly assess and deal with the crucial issues of authenticity of the Fund Arrangement Table and HXL's authority and reversed the burden by requiring the plaintiff to explain the excess payments; the contemporaneous documents and the defendant's conduct supported that the Agreement sum was paid and the defendant's defences did not establish a bona fide triable issue. Consequently the Court of Appeal granted conditional leave to defend on payment into court of HK$295,014,400 (calculated at HK$3.44 x 85,760,000 shares) withi…
12 Oct 2020

CHINA FORESTRY HOLDINGS CO LTD (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION)AND OTHERS v. KPMG (a firm)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2614
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL9/2019

Both the Discovery Summons and Authenticity Summons were dismissed: the court held that (1) the bulk of the discovery sought was not shown to be sufficiently relevant or necessary at the late interlocutory stage and was overly broad and oppressive; (2) interview notes and related materials were, to the extent claimed, protected by litigation privilege given the liquidators' dominant purpose of investigating and pursuing claims; and (3) requiring Plaintiffs to identify inauthentic documents among the voluminous disclosure would impose an undue and impractical burden and improperly reverse the…
21 Mar 2019

IAN HAYDN REED v. CHAN SUK FUN the administratrix of the estate of WAN LAI HA, the administratrix of the estate of CHAN SHUK CHING PINKY (Deceased)

Citation

[2019] HKDC 385
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4560/2007

The Agreement was authentic and, on the balance of evidence including contemporaneous medical notes and commercial reasonableness of the deal, the deceased had mental capacity when she signed; the defendant and administratrix prevented completion by refusing to accept the initial payment and therefore cannot rely on the buyer's failure to pay; paragraphs 4,6 and 8 must be given effect by implication so that if the seller died before the annual payments the buyer need only pay the initial HK$500,000; specific performance of the Agreement was therefore ordered and the defendant's counterclaim d…