Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidentiary sufficiency

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2024

PACIFIC DUNLOP GARMENTS LTD v. FUNDAMENTAL GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1019
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1655/2008

Because the only asserted link between Chan and Lee and the alleged contempt was their purported directorships and there was no evidence they remained directors as of 23 July 2021, and because the matter was long delayed despite directions and was sufficiently serious to potentially warrant imprisonment, an adjournment would be fruitless and the leave application must be dismissed.
4 Aug 2023

壬昕阳對医管局及其管辖玛丽医院行政总监黎咏欣及另三人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2036
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1200/2023

The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to disclose clear, arguable public law grounds supported by objective evidence, sought remedies not available in public law and the claims were inherently unclear and non-justiciable; accordingly there was no real prospect of success under the test in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung.
23 May 2023

HKSAR v. HALIM HASHIMI HABIB

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA25/2023

The Magistrate's finding that the prosecution proved the absence of a sufficient warning bell beyond reasonable doubt was reasonable and unimpeached; there was no demonstrable error in assessing the witness's credibility or in the findings of fact, so the Court of First Instance will not interfere and dismisses the appeal.
7 Feb 2022

賴容對何韋律師行

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI201/2021

The court found the plaintiff's amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process because it sought effectively to re-litigate matters already decided in earlier proceedings (HCPI 219/2013 and HCPI 705/2017); the plaintiff produced no admissible evidence that the doctor had admitted falsification or that the defendant concealed such admissions; the court had previously granted the defendant leave to file a defence so default judgment was not available; accordingly the claim was struck out and the interlocutory applications by the plaintiff were dis…
20 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. BALAN, EG DIONISIA LIGLIGEN

Citation

HKSAR v. BALAN, EG DIONISIA LIGLIGEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA359/2016

On the whole of the evidence the Magistrate was entitled to accept the police witnesses' account that the packet fell from the appellant's hand and was retrieved from the ground; lack of fingerprints was satisfactorily explained and did not prevent conviction; the sentence (24 months) fell within the appropriate range given the quantity, latent risk and previous convictions; therefore both appeals are dismissed.
20 Mar 2014

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC12/2013

The Court refused leave to appeal: the two proposed points of law were fact‑sensitive or did not arise on the evidence (the contracts were sham so veil‑piercing was unnecessary; the s25 question was irrelevant on the facts), and no substantial and grave injustice was shown because the evidence against the applicants was ample and the trial judge properly assessed credibility and inferences.
1 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA620/2012

Magistrate correctly refused to issue private summons because the allegations did not disclose any criminal offence and there was no evidence (eg no indication CCTV captured relevant conduct) or good cause to issue a summons; appellate interference was unjustified, so appeals dismissed.
25 Sept 2007

HKSAR v. MELENCION CHARITO LLANES

Citation

HKSAR v. MELENCION CHARITO LLANES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA9/2007

The appellate court held the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to negative beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant honestly and reasonably believed she was entitled to remain until 9 October; therefore the conviction could not stand and was quashed with the sentence set aside.
16 Dec 2005

PHONES INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TECHSINO INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

PHONES INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TECHSINO INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2840/2005

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the invoice and other material did not conclusively establish that the defendant in Hong Kong was the claimant in the UK action; factual disputes existed about identity and provenance of documents, making summary judgment inappropriate.
31 Aug 2005

HKSAR v. MANG NGAI MENG

Citation

HKSAR v. MANG NGAI MENG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA658/2005

The magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's account and accept PW1's account because PW1 had the right of way, the appellant admitted he did not properly stop ('almost stopped'), and the physical positions of the vehicles and photographs corroborated PW1; those findings provided sufficient evidence to convict for careless driving under s38(1) RTO, and the appeal is dismissed.