Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and hearsay

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

KATHAT SIKANDAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2291
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1475/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's fact-finding; the Board's adverse credibility findings, minimal weight given to hearsay, and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were within its province and not susceptible to supervisory interference.
18 Feb 2025

FU TAT CREDIT LTD v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 723
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1759/2012

The court accepted plaintiffs' contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence, rejected defendants' credibility (notably the Son and disregarded Father's hearsay statements), found no undue influence or unconscionable bargain, found statutory requirements of the MLO were met, and concluded the loan agreements and security instruments were enforceable; accordingly plaintiffs were entitled to possession and judgment for the claimed sums with interest and costs.
17 Mar 2023

IBRAHIM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL69/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same unsubstantiated facts previously rejected, his evidence was cumulative, hearsay or lacked credibility, there was no significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO to give a realistic prospect of success, and the court lawfully imposed a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
20 Feb 2014

ZHENG CHULIN v. WO KEE HONG KONG INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

ZHENG CHULIN v. WO KEE HONG KONG INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2581/2010

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant could not deliver vacant possession on 26 February 2010; plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and largely hearsay while the defendant's direct evidence was preferred, therefore the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the court declares the defendant entitled to forfeit the deposits.
5 Nov 2001

TREASURE COAST LTD. v. NIO SOANG TEK

Citation

TREASURE COAST LTD. v. NIO SOANG TEK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA95/2000

The Presiding Officer properly evaluated the evidence and was entitled to find the Appellant, not Silver Duck, was the Respondent's employer because remittance advices, insurance and immigration certification contradicted the Silver Duck contract and established the contract was bogus; therefore the tribunal's factual findings and awards were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

KATHAT SIKANDAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

FU TAT CREDIT LTD v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND ANOTHER

IBRAHIM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ZHENG CHULIN v. WO KEE HONG KONG INDUSTRIAL LTD

TREASURE COAST LTD. v. NIO SOANG TEK