Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evaluation of factual findings

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2505
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1332/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds in Form 86 and did not make the required full and frank disclosure, and because the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to be tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
23 Feb 2026

RE IDA TINI BT DIRJA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 282
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1193/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's decision; her assertions were general and unsupported and therefore did not constitute viable grounds for appeal, and the Court's role is limited to reviewing the judge's decision rather than re-examining the Board's factual conclusions.
6 Feb 2026

LAW KEE ALICE v. KENYE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA16/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the Labour Tribunal reasonably rejected the defendants' factual case (notably Zhang's evidence) which removed any factual foundation for alleging a duty to disclose; even if a disclosure duty were arguable, the claimant was negotiating her own employment and did not occupy an ad hoc fiduciary position obliging her to act solely for the employer or to disclose basic statutory limits; the tribunal fulfilled its s20(3) investigatory duty and no arguable point of law is established for appellate intervention.
18 Jun 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNG WUI APARTMENTS v. SARWIN INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 550
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP199/2024

The IO failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law; the Judge's adverse factual findings about the IO's failure to appoint an Authorised Person and the reasons for delay were open on the evidence, the grounds advanced were essentially factual and not legal, and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal; accordingly the renewed summonses for leave were dismissed and costs ordered.
11 Mar 2025

鍾紅蘭對安全護衛有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCA 243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV159/2024

The court found that special circumstances existed because the appellant is impecunious and the respondent would have difficulty enforcing a costs order; the appellant's appeal did not show a high prospect of success nor any palpable error in the District Court judge's factual findings; therefore it was proper to order security for costs but in a reduced amount of HKD150,000 and to stay the appeal until payment.
26 Jul 2024

GOLDEN PROFIT PROPERTY AGENCY LTD 對許志維

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1128
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5530/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant's grounds did not demonstrate any palpable or plain error in the primary judge's findings of fact, the newly advanced explanations and evidence fail the Ladd v Marshall criteria and are self‑serving, and there was no other factor making it in the interests of justice to grant permission.
12 Jul 2024

HO WAI KWONG , executor of the estate of YU KING, deceased v. HO KAM CHUI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1844
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1224/2016

Defendant failed to show an arguable appeal or a real risk that non‑granting of a stay would render the appeal nugatory and the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong; therefore the stay and leave to appeal were refused and the s25A enforcement application was granted subject to an undertaking from the Plaintiff.
13 May 2020

KONG HON KUI THOMAS and KONG HON QUAN MARIUS (Administrators of the Estate of Kong So Ngo, Deceased) 對 WU YUK CHUN JUDY 及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCA 306
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV190/2019

The application for leave was dismissed because the issues raised were primarily fact-specific, the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge's factual findings, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any question of law of general or public importance or other reason to justify the Court of Final Appeal's intervention. Costs were ordered against the applicant.
6 Dec 2018

大志之家有限公司對萬恩發展有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1478
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4882/2015

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice; the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong on the issues raised, thus dismissal of the leave application and an order for costs was justified.
22 Jun 2017

綽誠工程有限公司對郭晉諾經營晉發工程公司

Citation

綽誠工程有限公司對郭晉諾經營晉發工程公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA22/2017

The application for leave to appeal is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error in the tribunal's reasoning or decision; the grounds advanced amount to disagreement with factual findings and allegations of procedural defects that do not constitute error of law; the new evidence and assertions of confusion over representation were insufficient to show the tribunal's decision was vitiated and thus do not justify leave.