Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty to investigate

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

AKTHER PARVIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1903
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL380/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any valid arguable grounds; the Board's decision involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, credibility findings and delay were open to the Board, internal relocation was a reasonable alternative, and materials not placed before the Board cannot be relied upon in judicial review absent a positive duty on the decision-maker to elicit them.
13 Nov 2025

李文永對博愛醫院

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5587
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA32/2025

Permission to appeal was refused because the appellant's complaints were disagreements with the Tribunal's factual and credibility findings—which do not raise errors of law—and the Tribunal properly performed its inquisitorial duty under s16(3) SCTO with supporting documentary and photographic evidence; consequently there was no arguable legal basis for appeal.
5 Sept 2025

CHAN CHUNG MAN 對 CHAN KEONG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA20/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the tribunal judge fulfilled the statutory duty to investigate by considering the dashcam and other relevant evidence, made permissible factual and credibility findings supported by the record (including a criminal conviction), and the appellant showed no legal error or injustice warranting appellate interference with factual determinations or discretionary costs decisions.
18 Jul 2025

LI MIJIANG v. HOILUNG GROUP INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA47/2024

The Deputy Adjudicator committed legal error by failing to investigate three material issues (identity of employer, potential illegality of the agreements due to immigration/work permission, and whether the Claimant resigned), such failures constituted a breach of the statutory duty to investigate under s20(3) LTO and warranted allowing the Defendant's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the case for retrial before a different adjudicator to address those issues.
25 Apr 2025

羅健信對香港警方

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1830/2024

The plaintiff's claim was struck out and the appeal dismissed because the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action (police do not owe a civil duty to investigate in the asserted manner), was statute-barred under Cap 347 given the 14-year delay, and was frivolous and an abuse of process; accordingly the striking-out order was upheld and costs awarded to the defendant.
28 Apr 2023

MA KWOK MING v. JONES LANG LASALLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA30/2020

The adjudicator's decision on liability was set aside and the five claims remitted because he failed to consider a relevant factor (the burst B1 pipe) affecting causation and failed to discharge the statutory duty to alert the defendant to the likely need for expert evidence under s16(3), causing injustice; however the adjudicator was entitled to rely on the defendant's internal guidelines to find that sandbags/water barriers would likely have been effective and that the Act of God defence did not prevail absent evidence to the contrary.
17 Dec 2020

KOUK CHUNG FAI AND ANOTHER v. EBP GLOBAL LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3070
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA1/2019

The appeal was dismissed: the presiding officer did not err in law or act irrationally in refusing to transfer the wage claims. The claimant's claims were within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, were not so complex or grave as to require transfer, and Employment Ordinance s32(1) precluded any equitable set-off based on the employer's counterclaim; the Tribunal's case management and decision to separate adjudication of wage claims (to continue in the Tribunal) from the employer's counterclaim (pursued in District Court) was lawful and not plainly wrong.
23 Dec 2019

WOON THEAN MUN v. HONG KONG AIRLINES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2968
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA27/2018

Leave to appeal was granted in part because the applicant demonstrated arguable errors of law and potential failure to discharge the statutory duty to investigate such that a fair determination may be impeded; the core issues involved construction of the Employment Contract and incorporation of the Conditions (mixed fact and law) which are amenable to appeal. Leave was limited to the 1st, 3rd and 4th Grounds and new facts not canvassed at trial cannot be relied on at appeal.
11 Apr 2018

鄭麗英訴利華防水建築有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 738
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA12/2017

Permission to appeal was granted in respect of several arguable legal errors: inadequate investigation of relevant matters under s20, inadequate treatment of the discretionary-bonus evidence, potential errors in the Tribunal's approach to commission calculation (including treatment of projects unfinished at resignation and co-working issues), and admission/consideration of late evidence; one ground alleging unlawful shifting of the burden of proof was rejected as unarguable on the record.
12 Feb 2018

A WORKSHOP COMMUNICATIONS LTD v. TAM HEUNG MAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 332
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA46/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant's counterclaim as pleaded sought damages for breach not rescission and contained no pleaded acceptance of repudiation, the DPO's factual findings that the contract was affirmed (issue of cheque and subsequent messages) were open on the evidence and not perverse, the application for expert evidence was late and would have prejudiced claimant and was unnecessary given the factual and contractual context, and the DPO did not abuse his discretionary duty to investigate.