Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidential sufficiency

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1923
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1135/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to advance any reasonable arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; the Board had conducted anxious scrutiny of factual issues, found no reliable evidence of a real risk of harm or requisite severity and reasonably assessed availability of state protection, thus its decision was lawful and rational.
3 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1061
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1318/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds; the Board had considered evidence, found lack of evidential support, assessed low risk and viable internal relocation, and its decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there was no reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.
26 Feb 2026

林惠榮對林德元

Citation

[2026] HKCA 268
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV158/2024

The Court refused permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and refused the stay because the permission application was filed more than two months late with no application for extension or explanation, and the proposed grounds lacked merit and did not raise issues of broad or public importance; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs assessed at HK$55,000.
26 Jan 2026

RE INSIGHT STUDIOS (HK) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW668/2025

The Company failed to produce sufficiently credible, precise and particularised evidence that funds would be available within a reasonable time; therefore an adjournment was refused and the Petitioner was entitled to a usual winding-up order under s177(1)(d) Cap.32.
14 Nov 2025

葉仲恩對法律援助署署長及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2067/2025

Permission for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case that the Legal Aid Department's refusal or the Deputy Registrar's dismissal was legally irrational, procedurally unfair or otherwise outside the range of reasonable decisions; the medical evidence was objectively insufficient to establish causation and, coupled with jurisdictional concerns and low likely damages, refusal to grant legal aid was a reasonable exercise of discretion.
9 Jul 2025

香港特別行政區訴孫浩男

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA314/2024

On a full re‑hearing the Court concluded there was sufficient, cogent evidence (PW1, PW2, appellant's admission in P3 and rear‑camera video P2) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant negligently rode his bicycle towards the dividing line while overtaking and collided with PW1; the conviction for careless cycling under s46(1) Cap.374 and the fine of HK$1,500 were therefore safe and were upheld.
27 May 2025

C 對 N

Citation

[2025] HKCA 465
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP88/2024

The Court refused the out‑of‑time leave application because the applicant merely repeated prior rejected allegations without addressing the trial judge's reasons, the judge below gave a full and reasonable analysis supported by disclosed medical records, there was no evidential basis or realistic prospect of success for the proposed appeal, and no legal error in the exercise of discretion was shown.
12 Dec 2024

律政司司長訴牛奶有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA88/2024

Magistrate did not err in law or reach a conclusion no reasonable magistrate could reach. Point‑of‑sale displays, even if conspicuous (colours, lighting, bespoke holders, pack arrangements), are not automatically "tobacco advertisements" under Cap.371; prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the displays were promotional in the statutory sense rather than sales displays. Where s.14(1)(c) might be engaged, s.14(1A) (anti-smoking purpose) can negate classification as tobacco advertisement in the circumstances; the acquittals are therefore upheld.
11 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴陳思朗

Citation

[2024] HKCA 529
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC28/2023

The Court refused leave to appeal: the trial judge's adverse credibility findings and inference that the applicant had come prepared to participate in the riot were reasonable and open on the evidence, the prosecution proved participation and the collective character of the riot, and the sentencing judge's baseline and 3-month discount were within proper exercise of discretion; conviction and sentence are affirmed.
16 Jan 2024

RE LE VAN LOC alias LE VAN HIEN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 37
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV399/2022

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, relied on vague and unsupported assertions that merely re‑ran previously rejected arguments, and did not point to any specific error in the Court of Appeal's judgment; the matters were fact‑specific and did not meet the statutory test.