Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exclusion of evidence

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2026

HKSAR v. CHAN KA LOK

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 416
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC121/2024

Pre-arrest WhatsApp messages were excluded because their discovery and exploitation were tainted by the defendant's cooperative participation in a CDO; the subsequently obtained search warrant was derivative of that cooperation and did not cure the inherent unfairness identified in Li Cheuk Wah; applying the discretionary balancing exercise in Chan Kau Tai, admission would undermine a fair trial and therefore the evidence must be excluded.
1 Sept 2025

HKSAR v. ARIF AQIB

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3967
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC402/2023

The court held the parade admissible: police had a reasonable investigative basis (CCTV showing a dark saloon with a partial plate, link to defendant's family vehicle and stop-list interception) to include D1; the parade was properly conducted with D1's voluntary participation and no demonstrated impropriety; inconsistencies in pre-parade witness accounts affect weight and credibility to be assessed by the jury, not admissibility.
23 Jun 2025

KINGSTON FINANCE LTD v. GAINCOURT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP369/2024

On the evidence before the court the Intervener has raised triable issues of fact on both non est factum and undue influence such that her defences cannot be struck out at this interlocutory stage; the plaintiff was on inquiry concerning undue influence and failed to take reasonable steps to allay that risk; the Intervener was properly permitted to file supplemental affirmations and P's summons to exclude those affirmations fails; the Intervener is to be joined as the 4th Defendant and existing stay continued pending determination of the appeal and related proceedings, with costs reserved (or…
19 Apr 2024

HKSAR v. HARJIT SINGH

Citation

[2024] HKCA 350
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC91/2022

The warrant was valid because the written information supplied objective facts sufficient for a magistrate to have 'reason to believe' as required by s13C(1), and the applicant's formal declaration before the magistrate amounted to a solemn confirmation equivalent to an oath or affirmation; consequently the seized items were admissible; 'unlawfully obtained' in s42(2)(c)(i) is construed broadly to cover genuine documents obtained unlawfully from any person, so the possession offence was made out.
5 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. GURUNG ASHIS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1709
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC269/2020

Because the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the two identification parades on 27 June 2019 were fairly conducted — given unresolved doubts about actors' ethnicity, absence of contemporaneous records or evidence from the actors, and visual dissimilarities on the footage — the identification parade materials (Exhibits PP30 and PP35 and related documents) are inadmissible.
15 Sept 2022

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1363
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP137/2022

The Court refused direct leave for a costs-only appeal absent exceptional circumstances and dismissed the plaintiff's costs challenges on the merits: the Judge's finding of abuse of process and that the interlocutory applications were incidental to overlapping abusive claims was a proper exercise of discretion and not plainly wrong; indemnity costs and the allocation of costs in respect of the Exclusion/ancillary summonses were justified or reasonable respectively, so no appellate interference was warranted.
21 Jun 2022

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI WAI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC290/2020

The judge found for the purposes of the voir dire that the admission was made and that it was voluntary because the defendant's account of assault and coercion was not credible, injuries were minor and consistent with resisting arrest, officers followed proper procedure, and therefore the admission is admissible and may be placed before the jury.
23 May 2022

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA404/2018

The plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or that the court erred in principle or acted plainly wrongly; the core dispute about exclusion of the Recording and Transcript was resolved for the 1st defendant, making the plaintiff not the effective winner and his conduct unreasonable; the 2nd defendant's refusal to provide the Confirmation was justified and was provided only after review; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were ordered against the plaintiff on a party and party basis with a certificate for two counsel for the 1st defendant, indemnity costs were…
21 Oct 2020

HIGH HOPE ZHONGDING CORPORATION v. 廈門墩峰進出口有限公司 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2485/2015

The amendment and related evidence were refused because (i) a surety cannot assert an equitable set-off available to the principal debtor in the absence of that principal debtor in the same proceedings; and (ii) the proposed amendment came at a late stage after trial had commenced and would cause serious prejudice by requiring adjournment and undermining Civil Justice Reform; the Agreed List reference did not cure the absence of pleading.
10 Sept 2019

香港特別行政區訴梁志文

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1048
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC277/2017

The trial judge did not err: the utterance was admissible and the judge properly directed the jury on its possible meanings; there was no sufficient evidence of police coercion or improper methods to require exclusion or an in‑trial voir dire; the directions on cash and exclusion of phone/phone card evidence were appropriate and not prejudicial. Accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is refused.