Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and evidential burden

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2025

AFGHAN SALIM KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2435
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL601/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on lack of evidence, availability of state protection and reasonableness of internal relocation were not shown to involve errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention.
17 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. KOFI FRIMPONG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2420
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC104/2020

On the evidence the prosecution proved on the balance of probabilities a prima facie case that the HK$9,580 was either proceeds of or used in connection with drug trafficking; the defendant's explanation was not credible and failed to discharge the evidential burden, therefore the cash was forfeitable under section 56(1) and must be forfeited to the Government.
9 May 2018

CHEUNG KWAN YIN AND ANOTHER v. SANTA FONG CO LTD

Citation

[2018] HKDC 492
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1547/2014

The plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities, by compelling and credible evidence, continuous and exclusive factual possession and the requisite animus possidendi over Lots 482 and 520 for any continuous 12-year period; the plaintiffs’ oral evidence was found to be dishonest and unreliable, the aerial photo and expert evidence did not establish plantation by plaintiffs for the statutory period, and therefore the adverse possession claim is dismissed and the defendant retains title and is entitled to possession.
10 Jan 2003

CHING KIN WAH v. UNION ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

CHING KIN WAH v. UNION ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ9886/2001

On the evidence and credibility findings the defendant received $1,356,000 and accounted for only $1,139,061.03; he is therefore liable to repay $216,938.97. His unexplained absence and failure to account justified summary dismissal under the Employment Ordinance; accordingly most of his counterclaims were dismissed except for wages May–July 2000 and a pro‑rata 13th month payment, totaling $88,478.10.

Hong Kong Case Law

AFGHAN SALIM KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HKSAR v. KOFI FRIMPONG

CHEUNG KWAN YIN AND ANOTHER v. SANTA FONG CO LTD

CHING KIN WAH v. UNION ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD