Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence and credibility

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2171
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1538/2022

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the TCAB applied correct legal principles and its factual conclusions were supported by the evidence, so there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
10 Apr 2026

香港特別行政區訴薛俊希

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA270/2023

Accepting PW1's credible technical and factual evidence and the totality of admitted facts, the court concluded the appellant, unauthorised, used the SendPush interface to send five false push notifications which were stored on TVB's managed server and thereby added data and caused the computer system to operate otherwise than as its owner intended; appellant had no honest belief of authorization and no lawful excuse, proof beyond reasonable doubt established, appeal dismissed.
1 Apr 2026

GIRI RADHE SHYAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1954
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1920/2025

The leave application is dismissed and extension of time refused because the applicant filed over 19 months late without satisfactory explanation, and on the merits the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the intended judicial review lacked realistic prospects of success and therefore leave must be refused.
18 Mar 2026

香港特別行政區訴鍾碩琛

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA42/2025

On a rehearing the High Court accepted PW1’s credible, consistent evidence corroborated by sketches and photographs and rejected the appellant’s account as implausible; the evidence did not establish dangerous driving (running a red light) beyond reasonable doubt but did establish that the appellant failed to exercise the requisite care when turning and therefore was rightly convicted of careless driving; the appeal is dismissed and the original fine upheld.
5 Mar 2026

LUEN SHING STEEL IRON ENGINEERING WORKS LTD v. MAN YIP KAU

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1259
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2956/2018

On the balance of probabilities the parties entered an oral but enforceable joint venture agreement with essential terms: use of Luen Shing as vehicle, inclusion of all Luen Shing construction sites from June/July 2007 to 25 October 2018, equal sharing of profits and losses and capital injections/distributions as agreed; contemporaneous triplicate Notebooks, the 2017/2018 Tables, distribution history to Mr Lui and Mr Man and adverse inference from non‑production of bank records established the JV and the entitlement to accounts and related reliefs.
30 Jan 2026

李廣榮對金苑飲食集團有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKDC 95
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1802/2022

On the facts the applicant remained employed and was within his normal working hours on employer's premises when assaulted; respondent produced no contrary evidence and did not require him to leave; therefore, under s.5(4)(a) the injury is to be treated as arising out of and in the course of employment and respondent is liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance.
31 Dec 2025

關艷群對六合藥業有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2131
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC425/2021

Claim dismissed because no 'accident' as defined under s5(1) was proved; occupational disease was not pleaded and the claimant's diagnosed condition is not a disease listed in Schedule 2; expert medical evidence found the shoulder pathology unrelated to the short period of data‑entry work; claimant found dishonest and her evidence rejected — therefore no legal liability under the Ordinance.
15 Dec 2025

EMEZUO CHUKWUDI OZOEMENA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1084
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV41/2025

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success.
11 Dec 2025

KONG LAI WAN及另一人對 HO SHUI LUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1118
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP238/2024

The Court refused leave because the defendant merely repeated earlier rejected arguments without identifying any material error in the assessing officer's findings, failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and failed to demonstrate procedural unfairness; accordingly the assessment and interim costs order were upheld and leave was refused.
31 Oct 2025

熊明泉對吳樂雄

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1683
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1802/2023

On the balance of probabilities the court found the applicant was an employee: respondent exercised control over work allocation and hours, supplied materials and tools, paid the applicant by daily wage evidenced by receipts and WhatsApp records, and acted to process the Form 2; s5(4) applied to treat the accident as in the course of employment; applicant's monthly earnings were calculated from an accepted daily wage of HK$1,600 and average working days to HK$38,400; applying statutory formulas produced awards under s9 (HK$17,088), s10 (HK$130,048) and s10A (HK$1,260) totaling HK$148,396, whi…