Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The District Court held the defendant liable for water seepage from Flat 5E to Flat 4E, granted an injunction, and awarded HK$336,578.60 in damages.
The Court of First Instance dismissed a personal injuries claim arising from pituitary surgery, finding informed consent had been obtained and liability not proved.
The court allowed the plaintiff to file the supplemental affidavit but refused the defendant's application to adduce fresh evidence because the defendant failed the primary Ladd v Marshall requirement of demonstrating that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before or during trial, and the proposed materials lacked sufficient importance/impact and credibility; accordingly the defendant's 17 January 2025 summons was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of HKD133,000.
Source excerpt
Permission was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Committee's decision was irrational/unreasonable and/or unfair: the key experts relied on a TEE report without having inspected the primary TEE images, giving rise to a reasonably arguable failure to verify foundational evidence and to a reasonably arguable breach of experts' duties; accordingly the decision not to refer for inquiry and to terminate disciplinary action was open to judicial review.
Source excerpt
Assessment of damages in a road traffic personal injury claim. The court rejected causation and most heads of loss, awarding only HK$5,000 for vehicle repair costs.
The court reviewed an unsealed order refusing leave to appeal, considered the plaintiff’s reply submissions, and refused the review application with no order as to costs.
The Court held the trial judge failed to give adequate and properly sequenced directions on the subjective element of 'reasonable grounds to believe', omitted the required step of treating defence assertions that may be 'possible true' as part of the assessment, gave incomplete guidance on the nature of predicate offences (erroneously suggesting extraterritorial conduct was necessarily within Hong Kong law), and gave inadequate directions on conspiracy mens rea; these deficiencies rendered the convictions unsafe. Consequently the convictions and sentences of D3, D4 and D5 were quashed and set…
Source excerpt
The District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s applications for leave to appeal and for recusal, finding no reasonable prospect of success and no actual or apparent bias.
Because the defendant failed to file witness statements or attend trial, the court disregarded any defendant evidence, accepted the unchallenged testimony and expert report of the plaintiffs as credible, found breaches including failure to exercise reasonable skill and delay, but limited damages to the amounts particularised in the statement of claim; awarded HKD1,097,332.00 plus prescribed interest and costs to the plaintiffs.
Source excerpt
Defendant is civilly liable for the assault; the defendant's criminal conviction under ESCC 749/2019 is admissible under s62 and establishes the defendant committed the assault; medical expert evidence supporting exaggeration of long‑term symptoms was preferred over experts who relied on treating psychiatrists without explaining objective bases; plaintiff's asserted long‑term post‑concussional syndrome and loss of earning capacity were not proven on the balance of probabilities; damages assessed at HKD 204,140 but wholly offset by prior workers' compensation payments of HKD 694,182.14 so no p…
Source excerpt
Explore more
