Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Document authenticity

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2025

SHIBAURA ELECTRONICS HONG KONG CO., LTD v. MICROSTART GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA705/2022

The 1st Defendant failed to prove the existence of any genuine transaction with Vancii: key witnesses with personal knowledge were not produced, documentary provenance and authenticity were not established, and the 1st Defendant's principal witness was not credible. On that factual basis the court found the 1st Defendant received HK$5,778,000 without basis and, having acquired knowledge upon receipt of the writ, became a constructive trustee of that sum; accordingly the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration, tracing/account, repayment of HK$5,778,000 with interest and costs.
27 Mar 2024

尹應墀對黎子平経营昇平工程公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 882
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA12/2024

The applicant failed to advance any arguable legal or jurisdictional point; the Tribunal's findings that the documents were genuine and that the address error was a typographical matter are supported by evidence and within its jurisdiction; therefore leave to appeal is refused and no costs order is made.
6 Jul 2023

鄭振輝對陳偉玲

Citation

[2023] HKDC 899
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3767/2019

The application for leave to appeal was refused because it was substantially out of time without explanation and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; therefore neither extension nor leave should be granted under s63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance.
17 Feb 2023

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ v. KIN HONG TRANSPORTATION CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 185
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV458/2021

The Court dismissed the appeal because the judge's adverse credibility findings against the applicant were unchallenged and dispositive; there was no basis to draw adverse inferences from Chen's absence given other available evidence (Lo, Leung, Tong), the pandemic quarantine explanation, and the late challenge to the Agreement; the judge's finding that the applicant failed to prove the respondent was his employer was not plainly wrong and was therefore upheld.
23 Sept 2022

CHAN YAT MAN v. TUNG PO (H.K.) TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2937
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2904/2017

On the totality of credible evidence the Court found the HK$5,000,000 was provided by the plaintiff to the company to reduce SZ Indigo account receivables (not a loan); plaintiff was an unreliable witness on key matters; key challenged documents were not authenticated by plaintiff; plaintiff's substantive claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim allowed in part and monetary damages awarded to defendant in the sum of HK$262,155.67 with interest and costs as ordered.
28 Apr 2022

吳彩琼對吳慶年

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP21/2018

Court found the defendant not a credible or reliable witness, rejected key supporting affidavits and documentary assertions as unproved or likely forged, and concluded the defendant failed to prove any lawful customary adoption (which must be public and family-acknowledged). Consequently the grant of letters of administration obtained by the defendant was revoked and his counterclaim dismissed.
4 Dec 2020

RE FAHEEM MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 993
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV321/2020

The Court allowed the appeal and granted leave because, applying anxious scrutiny, it was reasonably arguable that the Board inadequately assessed the FIR and newspaper report regarding the 27 August 2017 incident and should have at least directed further investigation by the Director into the authenticity and probative value of those documents; otherwise the Board's adverse credibility and internal relocation findings remain matters for the Board absent clear public law error.
27 Sept 2018

RE BANSILES JAMAICHA BAGUINDO

Citation

[2018] HKCA 641
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV98/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the Board conducted a fair oral hearing, the applicant's core allegations were speculative and lacked objective corroboration, COI assessment did not reveal procedural unfairness, extended state acquiescence was inapplicable absent evidence of state involvement, the Barangay Captain Document was legitimately doubted for lack of authentication, and thus the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable and had no prospect of success.
7 May 2018

LI MING AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1042
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1282/2017

The record is unreadable and cannot serve as a reliable basis for substantive adjudication; the court will not determine merits absent a legible, authenticated filing and therefore refuses to proceed on the present document.
27 Aug 2015

TULSIANI RAMESH JHAMANDAS v. LALWANI PREM KHEMCHAND

Citation

TULSIANI RAMESH JHAMANDAS v. LALWANI PREM KHEMCHAND
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA261/2012

On the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff advanced HK$8,500,000 to the defendant personally; the 2nd Confirmation of 28 November 2009 was genuine and the defendant acknowledged an outstanding principal of HK$6,500,000; the defendant's alternative case that the monies were owed by Citisonic/VPG failed because the evidence showed the arrangements were personal between plaintiff and defendant and the disputed emails and documents did not rebut the plaintiff's case; judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$6,500,000 plus contractual interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim di…