Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Browne v dunn

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2024

HORN KING LTD v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1478
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ296/2018

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: no procedural unfairness under Browne v Dunn given parties' agreement and that the discrepancies were apparent and receipts materially incomplete; the trial judge properly weighed witness credibility and documentary evidence and was entitled to reject the October Receipt and testimony; appellate intervention unwarranted absent a plainly wrong finding.
29 Sept 2022

香港特別行政區訴謝俊鴻

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1468
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC170/2021

The application for leave to appeal was refused because none of the three grounds disclosed a reasonably arguable case; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence, supported by multiple inconsistencies and corroboration of police testimony, and there was no material irregularity or legal error warranting appellate intervention.
3 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴黎樹棋

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3583
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA56/2021

The conviction was upheld because the appellant did not discharge the burden to establish the statutory defence under s17I(1A) — he failed to take all reasonably practicable steps (his enquiries were perfunctory and he fabricated an employment contract) and therefore the trial judge correctly rejected his evidence; sentencing followed established guidance (starting point 3 months reduced to 2.5 months) but, on appeal, the custodial sentence was suspended for 24 months given the appellant had been deceived and had substantial mitigation.
22 Feb 2017

AROTAMAS INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MELOFIELD NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR LTD

Citation

AROTAMAS INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MELOFIELD NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ309/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not show a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge had properly weighed contemporaneous documentary evidence (invoice over a 4‑year‑old email), had taken into account failure to call witnesses, rightly placed the evidential burden on the defendant who pleaded possession and identification, did not improperly draw adverse inferences without basis, and made credibility findings and factual assessments that are not plainly wrong and thus not arguable on appeal.
31 Jan 2012

HKSAR v. CHAN HOI TAT

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOI TAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC447/2010

The points of law raised were not engaged and were fact-specific; the trial judge acted within discretion in considering the unexplained lateness of the alibi when evaluating credibility and made no adverse comment; accordingly the application for a certificate under section 32(2) Cap 484 is refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

HORN KING LTD v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

香港特別行政區 訴 謝俊鴻

香港特別行政區 訴 黎樹棋

AROTAMAS INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MELOFIELD NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR LTD

HKSAR v. CHAN HOI TAT

香港特別行政區訴謝俊鴻

香港特別行政區訴黎樹棋