Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence and disclosure

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2026

HKSAR v. HUNG KAR YAN KARIN 孔嘉殷

Citation

[2026] HKDC 576
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC492/2024

The court exercised its discretion under s5 Cap 492 to refuse the defendant's application for costs because, despite acquittal, the defendant's bank account transactions gave rise to strong suspicion and her exercise of the right to remain silent when arrested deprived authorities of the opportunity to allay that suspicion; those matters justified depriving her of costs. A certificate for two counsel was not warranted given the case's attributes.
19 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 111
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1346/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable: the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant provided no objective corroborative evidence of a real risk of serious harm; and findings on state protection and internal relocation were rational and supported by the record, satisfying the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
12 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3365
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL392/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds or provide material evidence; the Board’s factual findings that the applicant did not substantiate a BOR 2 risk and that state protection/internal relocation were viable involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore were not susceptible to judicial review.
28 Feb 2022

香港特別行政區訴黃淑珍

Citation

[2022] HKCA 335
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2020

The court held that although the appellant's conviction was quashed, she had by her conduct and unexplained inconsistent communications (notably P10) brought suspicion upon herself and failed to dispel it during investigation and trial; accordingly trial costs were refused. However, the court found the appeal work justified the engagement of two counsel and ordered bail application and appeal costs to be paid, amount to be agreed or assessed.
22 Oct 2021

郭浩良對趙慧賢及另五人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3069
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL740/2021

The summonses were dismissed because the applications were repetitive of matters already refused, lacked any reasonable legal basis, the requested evidential attendance and document authenticity challenges were unnecessary given existing filings and representation, and there were no arguable grounds for appeal.
23 Mar 2021

李德明及另一人對申訴專員公署

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2105/2020

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because applicants failed to particularise the decision and establish any reasonably arguable legal basis: the Ombudsman acted within statutory discretion, conducted an adequate investigation on available evidence, applicants' belated audio recordings were not before the Ombudsman at decision time, and no grounds of illegality, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness were shown.
14 Jan 2021

羅炳炎對六福集團有限公司

Citation

[2021] HKDC 7
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC312/2016

Court finds an accident (sudden intracerebral haemorrhage) occurred but claimant failed to prove it arose out of employment; CCTV and witness evidence disproved welding/fumes and hurried strenuous activity, and medical evidence established unmanaged hypertension as the cause; therefore employer not liable under the Ordinance.
16 Jan 2019

有關債務人黃德智的事宜

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 47
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB333/2018

Despite significant credibility concerns and inconsistent sworn statements and insufficient documentary proof of the alleged transfer, the available bank statements and loan statements did not establish that the debtor was plainly able to pay his debts when the petition was presented; therefore the petition was not found to be an abuse of process and a bankruptcy order was made, subject to trustee investigation and potential annulment if assets are recovered or it is shown the debtor could pay at the time of the order.
17 Jan 2018

鄧美華對鄧志健

Citation

[2018] HKDC 56
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1556/2015

Defendant failed to prove the alleged promise. Even if a promise existed, the defendant had been allocated public housing in April 2014 and declined the offer; therefore plaintiff's taking back possession after that date did not breach any binding promise. Consequence: plaintiff entitled to vacant possession and defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
12 Jun 2017

KAN KAI MING v. KAN KAI CHIU

Citation

KAN KAI MING v. KAN KAI CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA576/2014

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff’s and mother’s credible evidence and the documentary trail via the sister’s bank dealings; the plaintiff entrusted about HK$2.4 million to his mother to invest for his benefit and the Lung Poon Court property was acquired with those funds and held by the defendant as trustee for the plaintiff; accordingly the plaintiff is the sole beneficial owner and is entitled to declarations and an order for assignment and costs.