Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Electronic evidence (whatsapp)

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2026

GEI COENG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD 對 LONG KAM ENGINEERING PROJECT LTD及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 443
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3790/2021

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove a joint lease agreement with the defendants; the documentary and electronic evidence lacked provenance and linkage to the alleged agreement; the plaintiff's witness evidence was excluded for late filing; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for HK$420,000 failed and the first defendant's counterclaim was treated as abandoned and dismissed.
15 May 2025

證券及期貨事務監察委員會訴賴嘉怡

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA459/2024

On the whole of the evidence (victim's testimony, WhatsApp records and month‑end statements) the appellant represented to the victim that she was carrying on a securities trading business; applying Lee Yee Shing factors and the broad definition of 'business' the representation (holding out) was proved beyond reasonable doubt and no reasonable excuse was established; the conviction therefore stands and a two‑week immediate custodial sentence was proportionate in the circumstances given the deception, substantial loss and lack of remorse.
4 Mar 2024

葉啟華對潘泳霖

Citation

[2024] HKDC 155
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1253/2022

The court accepted the plaintiff's contemporaneous records, bank documents and WhatsApp evidence as reliable, rejected the defendant's inconsistent and non-contemporaneous ledger and late challenges as not credible, and therefore held the defendant liable to repay the outstanding loan of HKD221,210 less HKD1,200 repaid plus assessed bank interest loss, totaling HKD254,564.50, together with post-judgment interest and costs.
2 Mar 2021

香港特別行政區訴李偉嘉

Citation

[2021] HKCA 260
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC331/2019

The out‑of‑time application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused because the asserted grounds are without arguable merit: the trial judge's rulings on the 'case within a case', interventions during cross‑examination, and directions to the jury (including treatment of CCTV and WhatsApp evidence and the complainant's alleged 'blackout' and motive) were proper and did not amount to unfairness warranting appellate interference.

Hong Kong Case Law

GEI COENG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD 對 LONG KAM ENGINEERING PROJECT LTD及另一人

證券及期貨事務監察委員會 訴 賴嘉怡

葉啟華 對 潘泳霖

香港特別行政區 訴 李偉嘉

證券及期貨事務監察委員會訴賴嘉怡

葉啟華對潘泳霖

香港特別行政區訴李偉嘉