Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Handwriting expert evidence

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2026

CHINA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA784/2021

On the balance of probabilities the Defendant executed the two guarantees; circumstantial documentary evidence, public disclosures and credibility findings outweighed the Defendant's bare denial; expert handwriting evidence did not exclude the Defendant; the instruments operated as deeds or otherwise were enforceable and the Plaintiff was entitled to recover principal, contractual interest and continuing default interest and costs (order nisi).
10 Oct 2025

CHENG XURAN v. WONG WAI SZE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1713/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found the oral loan agreement existed and funds were advanced as pleaded; the Written Loan Agreement was not genuine (the signature was highly probably forged) and was rejected; the Repayment Agreement was validly signed voluntarily in the Office on 15 July 2019, was supported by consideration and was not vitiated by duress or lack of capacity; the IOU related to outstanding interest and remained unpaid; the plaintiff was not carrying on a money lending business so the MLO did not apply; accordingly plaintiff proved entitlement to HK$20,977,000 with s…
22 Sept 2025

李博生對 THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES及另六人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4352
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP197/2019

The court found the plaintiff’s evidence not credible, accepted the testimony of the third and seventh defendants and the defendants' handwriting expert analysis, concluded the disputed signatures were authentic and the disputed documents were not forged; accordingly the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary basis under s42 to correct or delete the company register and the plaintiff's application was dismissed.
18 Dec 2024

NG KOON FAI v. TO CHUNG YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2074
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1878/2021

The 2nd Defendant did not sign the purported Guarantee; the questioned signature was forged. The 2nd Defendant discharged the evidential burden to raise forgery and the Plaintiff failed to discharge the legal burden of proving genuineness given cogent forensic evidence of forgery and corroborating inherent probabilities; accordingly the claim against the 2nd Defendant is dismissed and costs follow the event.
15 Nov 2024

LAM WAI KONG v. LAM YING KIT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP28/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the Master did not err in law or exercise her discretion unreasonably: she legitimately considered the parties' pre-application conduct and complexity, was entitled to depart from the standard time-summons costs order, to make a summary assessment under O.62 r.9A, and the award of HK$75,000 with a certificate for counsel fell within the permissible range of her discretion.
4 Nov 2024

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1021
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV171/2024

The stay applications were dismissed because the defendant failed to establish arguable or strong grounds of appeal and failed to show the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay; furthermore the garnishee order against Henik was not stayed because the relevant shares had largely been sold and no real prejudice would result to the defendant.
14 Oct 2024

AU CHEE CHEONG 對區永昌及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1602
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1738/2021

Court found on the balance of probabilities that the alleged 25-year lease was not executed by the plaintiff (signatures not genuine), that at most plaintiff granted a bare licence which was revoked by the plaintiff on 15 February 2021, that D1's continued occupation from 16 February 2021 constituted trespass, and ordered immediate vacant possession, mesne profits at HKD 5,000 per month from 16 February 2021 plus interest and costs (provisional).
23 Jul 2024

CAPITAL WEALTH FINANCE COMPANY LTD v. LAI YUEH HSING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL17/2016

The court held the plaintiffs did not meet the high threshold required to show a high probability of success at trial sufficient to defeat security for costs; the handwriting reports and CCTV recordings did not incontrovertibly undermine prior judgments and could be contradicted or explained; accordingly both security for costs applications were allowed and security was assessed at HK$750,000 for each application, with costs ordered against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis and directions given for summary assessment and future conduct of the actions.
23 Jul 2024

MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL2/2016

Applications for security for costs were allowed because the plaintiffs, who are overseas and in liquidation, failed to demonstrate the very high threshold of a high degree of probability of success; the handwriting expert reports and CCTV recordings did not clearly or self-evidently undermine the judgments or satisfy the threshold; security was fixed at HK$750,000 for each application and costs were awarded against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis without a certificate for two counsel.
8 Apr 2024

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 979
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2860/2018

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff established that the loan was made and that the memoranda (including the three earlier memoranda) were genuine; the Defendant failed to prove forgery or that he lacked capacity by reason of intoxication when signing the 4th memorandum; the three part payments were repayments of the loan not set-offs for unrelated advances; the Defendant's counterclaim for HK$6,805,817 was not proved and was dismissed; interlocutory applications to admit new evidence and to amend pleadings were dismissed as either late, abusive or without merit; judgment entered fo…