Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Factual findings on appeal

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2025

TANG TZE NANG v. TANG KWONG MING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1686
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4616/2020

The application for leave and the stay were dismissed because the judge concluded the defendant had not shown a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's factual findings that there was no compelling evidence of exclusive possession or animus possidendi and that the 12-year alternative was not pleaded were sustainable and not plainly wrong; no strong grounds were shown to justify a stay.
12 Nov 2024

SO LAI SIN 對 GATHERHOME MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1029
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP56/2024

The application for an extension of time was refused because, although the delay was short, the plaintiff's proposed appeal had no real prospect of success given the primary judge's cogent adverse findings of fact that the transaction was a share sale (not a sale of leases), and the plaintiff failed to show any legal or evidential basis to demonstrate those findings were plainly wrong; accordingly the discretionary balance favoured refusal and the applicant must pay the respondent's costs.
2 Aug 2024

胡結生對范楚民 t/a 三寶工程公司

Citation

[2024] HKCA 736
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV169/2023

The trial judge's findings that the claimant was an employee were supported by the evidence (daily wage structure, lack of profit/loss sharing, respondent's control and provision of materials/tools, payments after injury and contemporaneous Form 2); those findings were not plainly wrong and warranted deference by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment affirmed.
11 Aug 2021

CHEUNG WAI SING JACKIE WALTER 對 BILLION CREDIT FINANCIAL CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1185
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP53/2020

The addendum to the loan agreement operated to make payment of the loan contingent on successful registration of the mortgage; the trial judge's construction of the documents and findings that the applicant had accepted the arrangement and was not a credible witness were not plainly wrong; therefore there was no real prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused.
29 Apr 2020

CHOW KWAN YEE v. LEUNG MEI YIN MAY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 657
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1260/2017

Defendants failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal with reasonable prospects of success because their grounds merely challenge factual findings made after live evidence and do not show any palpable or plainly wrong errors; accordingly the summons for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
11 Feb 2014

芮宗賢對吳杰森

Citation

芮宗賢對吳杰森
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV25/2013

The court found the respondent proved the appellant's financial difficulty and risk of non‑payment; the appellant's asserted grounds were largely factual and did not demonstrate sufficient merit at this interlocutory stage to outweigh the need for security. Therefore the court ordered the appellant to deposit HK$300,000 as security for costs within 14 days.
8 Dec 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN KIM LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KIM LUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1156/2005

The magistrate's factual finding that the appellant did not actually believe the container was abandoned was neither perverse nor unreasonable; on that basis the conviction is upheld and the $5,000 fine, assessed having regard to value, the offender's means and aggravating conduct, is not excessive and is affirmed.
9 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. CHEN CHI KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEN CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC113/2002

Given the proximity in time and location shortly after the attempted burglary, the presence of multiple glass fragments on the applicant's clothing matching the broken door, and the trial judge's acceptance of police credibility, the conviction was supported by an irresistible inference of involvement; appellate interference was unwarranted absent clear error, so leave to appeal was refused and limited custody credit applied.